Soemu Toyoda tribunal transcript, volume 31, pages 3870-4044

File Format:

Adobe Reader

I! I!
'l'OYODA-D
War Cri mes Tribunal Courthouse
Tokyo, Honshu, Japan
Friday, 8 July 1949
The Tribunal met, pursuant to adjournment, at 0930 hours.
BAILIFF: The War Crimes Tribunal is no~ in sessi on.
. PROSECT3TIO N (Iifr. Deitch): Let the record shovJ the Tribuna:
r econvened ~t 0930 hours, 8 July 1949, all member s of the Tr ibu-nal
being pres ent; Ivlr. Deitch for the prosecution; Hr. Blakeney,
n~. Furness, Ja9anese defense counsel for the defense; the
accused, the interpreters And the reporter.
DEFENSE 0 'Ir. Furness): If the Court 'please, yesterday the
Court asked a question about the organization of the Gener al
Staff and the organization of the Ministry. When th e witness
app ears -- I think he will appear sometime next week -- he will
t es tify with regard to the organizetion of the General Staff.
A:Lso , a document showing the official organization of the
G3neral Staff will be offer ed and identified by the witness
a1d, we assume , will be admitted and read into evidence.
E-ri'dence is also be ing prepared on the organization of the
.. MLnistry. .
We c all as our next witness, Yl:JFU Kikuo •.
Kikuo YUFU, a witness for the defens e , being first duly
sworn, t es tifi ed throu gh int erpreters as follows:
DIRECT EXANil\fATION
rQuestions by _the defense (Mr. Furness):
Q Pleas e st a te your name, age, present r e sidence, and pr e s en
employment.
A My name is YUF U Kikuo, My address is Shirouchi-mura,
Yamato-gun, Fukuoka Pr ef e cture. I am 53 years old. IV!y
occupation is legal couns el.
Q Are you a graduate of the law faculty ef the Tokyo Imp erial
University; and if so, when did you graduate?
PROSECUTION: If Mr. Furness vv ill state all of this in
t he affirmative and ask this man to agree, I will not object.
DEFEHSR: I shall put the question this way, then:
Q Did you graduate from the law faculty of the Tokyo
Imperial University in 1922; and were you almost immediat el
thereaft er appoint ed a naval judiciary officer, being then
classed as a civilian?
A Yes.
DEFENSE: ~fr. Deitch ha~ suggested thP.t I put my questions
to this witness in the form of leading questions. If at ·any
time he f ee ls that my asking him leading questions is preju-dicial
to the pros ecution, he will mak.e an obj ection and I
-3870-
~ I
I OYODA-D
shell then put the question in a form thet is not leading.
Then I can go back to lea d ing que stions again, to save time.
I shall proceed to do so.
Q Did you, aft er t ha t, successfully hold the following
offices: J udi ciary offic er of t he co urt-marti al of
Yokosuka end Kure navrl districts, anc judiciary off ic er
of th e court-martial of the Combined Fle et?
A Yes .
Q It is my und erstanding thet up until ~p ril 1, 1942 , you
wer e cla s s ed as e c ivilian employe d by the Navy, but that
on the 1st of April, 1942 , pursuant t0 a change in regu-lations
r el at ive t o naval j ud iciary officers, you were
appoint ed a capt ain , l eg al?
A Yes .
Q tmd th2t at the time of your appo intment you ''~ e re senior
judiciary offic er of the court-marti al of the China Ar ea
Fleet, but thet on August 1, 1943 , you wer e appointed
judiciary off ic er of t he court-martial of the Combined
Flee t and concur rently judici ar y offic er of the c ourts-martia
l of the First, Second, Third and Sixth Flee ts? I
am r ef erring to the First, Se cond, Third and Sixth Flee ts,
not sout he rn expeditionary fl ee ts b earing thr ee of t h ~se
numb ers.
A Yes .
Q I und ers tand ~ furthe r, tha t while you were still judiciary
off ic er of the court -marti al of the Combined Fl eet , you
wer e , on the organization of t he First Task Fl eet arou nd
Marc h 1944, appoint ed to the additional duty of judiciary
offic er of t he c ourt-marti al of that First Tas k Flee t?
A Yes .
Q Then, on Novemb er 1, 1944, you wer e r eli ev ed of t hese
duties and app oint ed judiciary officer of the hig her cour ~
martial and of t he Tokyo court- ma rtial, and concurr ently
a s enior memb er of t he Legal Affairs Bur ea u of the Navy
Ministry?
A Yes .
Q But the t you did not take up thes e duti es until the 25th
of November, 1944?
A Thet is correct.
Q Now, on July 10, 1 945, it is my und erstanding, you again
took t he post of jud iciary offic er of the court-marti a l
of t he Combined Fle et as an additional duty to the duti e s
\Yhich you took up on the 25th of Novemb er, 1944; is t hat
correct?
A Yes.
Q And tha t after the war wa s over, you b eca me a r ear admiral~
l egal, on Novemb er 1 of 1945, and you wer e appointed
Chi ef of the Lega l Affairs Bureau, Navy Mi nistry , on
J:IT ovemb er 20 , and continued to hold tha t post until s ome ti m
-3 871-
'l'OYODA-D
aft er the r e organization of t he Navy Ministry into the
Second Demobilization Ministry, but r e signed this post on
January 25, 1946, on account o>f illne ss; and sinc e th en
hav e been eng aged i n the priva1te prac tic e of law?
A Yes. I WR S pr omoted to r ear a!dmir2l, l egal, on November 1
1945; th en be came t be Chi ef or the Le ga l Affairs Bur eau
of the Ne vy :Ministry on 20th o>f Novemb er. Then , when the
Navy Ministry was r eorganized to the Second Demobiliz at ion
liinistry on the 31st of Novemb er, I r emained as the Chi Ff
of th e Leg al Affairs Bur ea u of the Second Demobilization
Ministry; end so on. That is corr e ct; ev erything you said
is corre ct.
Q Now, whe n you wer e appoint ed judic iary offic er of the court
mar tiel of t he Combined Flee t ,) the First, Second, Third
and Sixth Flee ts, on August 1,1 1943, it is my und erstanding
t hp t the hee dquart ers of the Combined Fle e t was on Truk ·
Island and that you took up your post at Truk on tugust 8
and wer e dir e ct ed to make your hea dquart ers on board the
Battleship Yamato?
PROSECUTION : Sir, the pros ecmtion is willing to stipu-l
at e t ha t thi s witness will t e stify according to the aff idavit
or the rna t ter in the possession of r:~r. Furness, if Mr. Furne ss
will r ead it. We shall be ab l e to s ave a gr eat deal of time
due to tr c.ns l a tion if W8 handle it in this manner.
I think the ma tt er i n the posse ssion of Mr. Furness may
compr is e approxi mately s even pages of typewritt en matt er ; I am
no t sure, I ha ve n't count ed the pa~ e s, but I am able to obs erve
from her e t hat th ere are quit e a f ew pages. If Mr. Furne ss
will r eed th e matt er, I shall be pr epared to cross- examine wher
he is finis hed . /
DEFENSS : If t he Court pleas e ,) ther e ar e s everal objection:
to tha t. First, while I heve a r ee ord of what I think this
witness will t e stify t o , it j_ s not all co mpris ed in any state-ment.
I have -- as we do with all witnes s e s -- asked him
ques tions and t aken notes of the answers in addition to the
matt er vv hich W8S t ypewrit ten.
Furthe rmor e , I think th?. t the def endant must know vvha t
t his witness is t e s tifying to . Whe ther I r ead it or not, it
must be tr ansl a t ed to him.
I think t hat we sho ul d pr oc eedl in the r egular ord er. I
will ask the s e qu es tions i n l eading form as l ong as Mr. De itch
permits me • . I should like to expedlite mat t ers considerably;
on the other hand , I do not think :n: should r ead th e entire
stat ement, be cause, as I say, I hawe many not e s in the margin ,
her e , on which I inte nd to ask que s tions; I also ha ve not e s on
the t es timony of othe r witne ss e s.
PROSECUTION: ¥.tr. Furne ss C<m r eao th e entir e stat ement,
and then ask his supp l ementary ques tions. I will h2ve no
ob je ction to that.
So f2r as taking up the ti me rnf t h is Tribunal in trans-l
a ting i t so the def endant will knrnw wha t is happening, I
- 3872-
TOYODA-D
b elieve thet is a was t e of time , The def endant could have been
shown this st ctemE. nt befor e t his witness vvc:s put on the st cnd,
and he c cn bo S ~"l o wn futur e stc.tements of futur e witness e s
be for e they tcke th e stand.
PRESIDENT: I think if you ar e not abl e to do that ,
Nrr. Furness, you should proc eed immed iately, end endeavor to
s ave cS much time as you c2n on the forma l matters.
DEFENSE: I am doing that now, sir,
PRESIDENT: Proc eed , please.
DEFENSE: I think ther e is 2. que stion pencing.
A The headquart ers of the Combined Fle et wes on the Battle-ship
Mus eshi. Howev er, I wa s ord ered to r eport on board
the Yama to.
Q
A
And as judiciary offic er of the court-martial of the
Combined Fl ee t, it is my underst;:mding, you had as your
subord ina t es only one r e cord er and one civilian guard?
That is corr ect.
Q I understend, further, thet cher e was only one li eut enant,
l ega l, as judici ary off ic er, one r e cord er, and one civiliai
guard for the court-martial of the Second and Third Fleets
end one li eut enant, l egal, as judiciary offic er and one
r ecord er and one civili an guard for the court-martial of
th e Six th Flee t; and that thos e wer e your only subordin a t e~
outsid e the subordinat e s which you hav2 alr ead y t es t i fi ed
to in the Combined Fl ee t organization?
A Th~t is corr ect.
Q f..nd that was pur suant to the custom at that ti me , caus ed
by the shortage of judiciary offic ers, to place 2 judiciar
offic er on duty to take care of more than one flee t
simultaneously when the various flee ts wer e in the seme
ar ea most of the time or within e. near distanc e of ea ch
other?
A The t is corre ct,
Q Am I corr ect, th en, thct you had no subordinat e s in your
organization assigned to the First Flee t; that the
officer, the r ecord er and the ci~an guard which I
r e f erre d to s erved concurr ently for th e Second and Third
Flee ts?
PROSECUTION: I may b e a little confus ed, and the only
r eason I am st anding up is to have the record clear ed up on
this point. I believe in his first question Mr. Furness men-tioned
th e First Flee t, and he did not withdraw it. It might
be in the r e cord, Then, he mentioned the Second Flee t, the
Third Fle e t, And the Sixth Flee t. And he said th ere was a
l egal offic er, a r ecord er, and a guard for ea ch one of thos e
fl ee ts. The r ecord may be confus ed i n thct reg ard. If
Nir. Furness vlfill cl ea r it up -- d~ you und erst cnd whet I me cn,
Mr. Furness? -
-3873-
TO YOD A-D
D ~FL N SE: Ye s, I do, but I think your nAt e s ar€ incorrect.
I think my question wes to the e f fr: ct: Wc:.s th er e one lieut en an•
as judiciary offic er, one r E: cordl a:r c> nd one civili en gue.rd for
t he court-martial of the Second and Third Flee ts? I did not
mention the First Flee t. If yow wa nt t he court report er to
che ck the t, I shall be gl cod to hw v e the: t done •
PROSECUTI ON : No, it is nott ne cessary.
DEFENSE: What W8S the vJ itmess 1 answer to my last qu e stim
PHESIDE:NT: Plea s e p.nswer.
A Th; t is corr ect.
Q Now, I under s t and, further" thet th e li eutenant who wa s
on duty ~ s judicia r y offic e r of the court-marti al of the
Sixth Fl ee t plso serv ed comcurrently es judiciary officer
of t he court-marti e. l of thE Fourth Fleet sinc e t his fl ee t
wes a t anchor a t Tru k ther e for e consid er able period of
time ?
A The judiciary off ic er of the court-martial of the Fburth
Fl ee t held the concurrent wost of the judiciary officer
for th e Sixth Fl ee t. I t i ffi the other W8 Y around.
Q I s ee . But, r.s I und erstemd it, you wer e not the judiciar:
offi cer for the Fourth Flee t i n 8ny way?
t., No.
Q When you r eported at Truk, I und erst<?:nd you visit ed the
headquart ers of the Sixth Wl ec t to pay your r e spects,
but exc ept for that, made mo visits to that fl ee t?
t The.t is corr ect.
Q And is this corr ect, t ha t lit was the prectic e th et this
lieut enant, l e g8lj who we s s erving concurrently as judi-ci
ary officer for t he Sixtfu Fleet and the Fourth Flee t,
visit ed the Sixth Flee t as need eros e , and that he would
ge t in touch with you with r egard to eny ne c esse.ry ma tt er s
which r eq uir ed your attentnon?
A Thct is corre ct.
Q find he did this in order t eo be in cont act with you, as
s enior jud i ciary officer o~ t he court-martiel of the Sixth
Fleet, 2nd not to make conttect with you in your capacity
as judiciary officer of thre court-martial of th e Combined
Fleet?
t Thet is corr ect.
Q It is my further und erstPnd ing th8t the court-mertial of
t he Combined Fle et had jurft sdiction only over personnel
belonging t~ vessels pnd umits directly under the command
of th e comma nder in chief cof the Combined Fleet es well
as members of his immediatre he adquarters, but the t those
belonging to subordinate f liee ts we r e under the court-martial
ef the .constituent fleets 1 jurisdiction, cmd
t he court-martial of th e C~mbined Fleet hed no authority
whetever over them?
A Tha t is correct.
-3874-
~-OY OD A -D
Q It is my underst pndinc that prisoners cf war wer e only
subject to the jurisdiction of th e court-marti al of the
Combined Flee t if t hey comm:iLtted offenses if they were
be ing held on ships directl~ subordinete to th e Combined
Fleet or in le nd units e. lso dir ectly und er the jurisdictiol
of the Combined Fleet, a nd not und er the jurisdiction of
c onstituent fle ets?
PRO SECUT I ON : Si r, I should like Mr. Furness to l ay the
groundwork, first, for t hi s questtion. I should like him to
show the t t here are no r egul rt ions in exist ence on t his ma tter,
or if ther e were r egul a tions, that they are no long er in
exi st enc e . The regulations would be the best evidenc e . So
f pr es t his ma n's t estimony is conc erned, I would hesitat e to
acc ept it until such groundwork fts fir s t l a id.
DEFENSE: I submit, Your Hamor, that this man, as judiciary
offic er of the Combined Fleet e.nd of thes e fl ee ts subordinate
to the Combined Fle et, can t es ti ~y on this ma tt er, I ma y ask
him, aft er this, if there are any r eg ulations, but I do not
think ther e er e any r eg ul at ions speci fic ally dea ling with this
que stion . I think it depends on the construction of re gula-ti
ons end it depends on the actu~l jurisdiction of t he court-martie
l of th e Combined Fl eet . :In other words , they he d
jurisdiction over CE)rt e in vessels, c e rt ~ in personnel, c ert a i n
ma tters; and they did not h8VC jmrisdiction over ot hers .
I think this wi t ncs s is fully qualifi ed to t e:stify, and
I think th at i n his t estimony on his qualifica tions end
experi enc e rnd duti es held, the g roundwor k has elr eady been
leid.
I would be very heppy to esk the quest ion not in l ead ing
form, if Mr. Deitch wishe s me to .•
PROSECUTIO N: Sir, I eomi t be is qualifi ed a s a judicial
off ic er. But he is not qu alifi ed to t e stify on some th i ng on
which th er e ere spe cific r eg ul at~ ons. Spe cific r eg ulations
~ auld be t he be st evid enc e . If ttherc ar e such r Pg ulations and
th ey ar e not produced, WE cen as~ume tha t this man is t es tifying
not a ccording t o the me tt er in the r egulations, Now, if he
s et s forth the ma tt er i n the r eg mlations I will have no obj ec-tion,
If he s cys ther € ar e r egulc:tions, and t his is wh~t thE:
regulptions s e.y , I will have no ~ bj e ction to that.
LAW I·ffir ..f fiLR : The obj ection :is ovE:rruled .
A That is corre ct.
DEFENSL: I will ask this qme stion not in l eed ing form
be c puse of Mr. De itch's obj e ctiom.
PROSECUT ION: You cen contimue with th e 1eeding form,
Mr. Furnes s. I will object wher ((; I think I should.
Q "~Hes t~-:. is due to t he· f pct th <r- t ther e wr, s no comma nd r e lation ·
ship wha t evc·r be t ween the ccourt-merti al of the Combined
Fl0e t 2nd thos e of the constituent fl e ets; t he court-me.
rti Pl of t he Combined Fle EB t end t he court-marti2l of
-3875-
T OYODl~ -D
the subordinat e fl ee ts b c in ~ ell on thE spmo l evel?
A Thrt is corre ct.
Q Now, is this correct, thet rP. ccording to th e Nc> vr.- 1 Court-martiel
Law , which is elrea~y in evid enc e in this ca s e ,
the Nrvy Minist er had the rwthority over ell courts-martial
in the Navy to commw nd and supervis e th cm in
r cspect to pros e cution r nd :i nve stigetion, wher ea s the
Commend cr in Chi ef of th E:: Ccombined Flee t had no higher
position so f er as court-m a~ ti ~ l we s conc er ne d than the
commanding officer of a fl e~ t court-martiel celled by
the court-mdrti Al of t he Co~bi ne d Flee t?
(The last que stion was r e~d et the r equest of the inter-pret
Er.)
DEFENSE: Perhaps I should wut tha t differ ently. I sha ll
withdraw the question and ask it differently.
Q Now, is this statement corr ce ct, th c-t'-- a ce or ding to the
Court-martial Law , the Nevy Minister had authority over
a ll courts-martial of the Nmvy to command and supervis e
them in r e spect to pros e cut:'ion and inves tig a tion, and
thPt the e. uthori ty of the Ccommander in Chi ef of the
Combined Flee t vvas on th e s cemc l ev el, a ccording to thos e
r egula tions, in r ege.rd to cco urt-marti al e s the commcmders
in chief of the constituent fl ee ts?
A Thpt is corr ect.
Q Is it true 1 too, thr t thf, Ccommand er in Chief
bined Fle e t hPd no me·ans c>ncd no ?Uthori ty to
courts-merti el of the const:'itu cnt fl ee ts?
ThPt is corr ect.
of the Com-supervis
e the
Q Now , und er these r ~ gul e tionffi and under the prrctic e wher e
a judg ment w~s r endered by tthe court-~a rti a l of a consti-tuent
fl ee t, the commanding officer of thet constituent
fl E'e t forwa rd ed a copy of El r e port and e copy of the judg-ment
to the Npvy Minist er, fuut on no occ asion wa s this
judg men t of th e court-m a rti ~ l of th ~ constituent fl ee t
submitted or for vm rd ed throwgh the Command er in Chi ef of
the Combined Fleet or throug h you, C1 s his jud iciflry
offic er?
PROSECUTIO N: Mr. Furness, ft f you will just keep on r ead-ing
end turn it over to the int errpr ct er, we will gE:·t elong
much f Ps t er. Then, we can t ake 2 r ecess and have it translat ed
to the -vv itne s s , end the witness <CPn s ay 11 YE:! S. 11
PRESIDENT: Le t us continue as we ere , ~.'Ir. Deitch.
PROSECUTION: I e.m sorry I pm peking 2ll the s e obj e ctions,
b ut it s eems like ~ us el ess wa st e of time to me.
t That is corr e ct.
'Q Now, Cluring the period that you held these co ncur rent
po sts -- thc- t of judiciary officer for the Combined Fleet
and that of judic i ar y offic e r of th0 courts-mar tiPl of
-3876-
TOYODt. -D
Q
Q
Q
thf First, SecondJ Third 2nd Sixth Fl ee ts -- were any
trials by court-mertia l held by thos e fl ee ts?
Ther e wer e no court-martiel trials held during that time .
fls judiciary offic er for the court-merti al of the Combined
Flee t, did you at eny time see or r ec eive any r eports or
judgmen ts cf courts-m~ rti ~ l of oth er constituent flee ts
of th e Combined Fleet in which you did not hold the con-curr
ent position of judiciary officGr for the court-martial
of t ho s e cons t ituent fl ee ts?
No,
Is it a lso tru e that with r egard to offens e s charg ed
eg~in st fl ag offic ers -- thatt is, offic e1s of th e r ank of
r oc r adm ir al and above -- th e court-martial of the Combined
Flee t or the court-martial of any of the constituent fl ee ts
or any other fl ee ts had no jurisdiction, but only the
higher court-merti pl heeded fuy the Navy Minist er had
exclusive jurisdiction?
That is corre ct.
The rule s and r egula tions r elPtive to navel court s -martial
were all provided for in a C ~ urt-m ar ti a l Law which wa s
passed by the Net ional Die t o f J apa n?
PROSECUTIO N: Sir, this qu es~ ion as we ll as many pr evious
qu es tions have alr ead y be en answ ered in pr evious t e stimony befor e
th i s TribunPl by ot her witne s se s. This man is just r epe ating
the t e stimony of other witne ss es . I s ee no r ees on why we
should he ve so much r epetition. IHis t e stimony will be ex8c tly
th e s cme . Unless ther e is new rna ~ t er , I sugge st th Pt I·.ffr. Furne s s
cea s e examining this witnes s. It has been c over ed before.
DEFENSE : I do not r emember teny t es timony on t his particulal
que stion .
PROSECUT I ON: I do.
DEFENSE: I submit the t the witness can answer yes or no,
end much time will be saved if he is allowed to do so.
[\
Q
A
Q
r ! -.
Q
PRESIDENT: The Law Member w:ill rul e .
LAW l\1EMBSR : The obj ection is overruled,
The t is correct,
~.nd und er t t.is l aw , ther e we:re t wo kinds of courts-martial
of th e Na vy; np.mely, th e p e r ~anent ~curt-marti a l and the
sp eci al court-ma rti8l?
Thr t i s c orre ct.
And und er t he ca tegory of th e permane nt court-mertia l was
t he higher court-mDrti el, th.e Tokyo court-mar ti el, end
the courts-marti el which wer re under th e v arious navel
districts and minor nav r l districts; is thFt corr ect?
ThPt is corr e ct.
t nd it wa s elso provided tha t flee t courts-martial, b es i e ged
-3877-
1'0YODf.-D
c:: r er c ourts - mort i FJ l, 2nd t crmporpry c ourts-mart i al should
be s et up sp eci a lly as any me ed eros e ?
;\ Ye s.
Q NovJ , as to this be sieged ar rE:'·e court-mar ti el, wa s that 2
court- mar ti al which wa s prowided for to app ly only to
ar e2s within J apa n Prop er amd had no r ef 0r enc e to courts-ma
rti cl in occupied t err ito~ i e s?
P~SEC UT I ON : Obj ection.
Sir, I will have no objecti ,on to Pr. Furnes s ' c::sking t his
man for e definition of the word "be sieged ar ea . 11
DLFE ~mE : You VJe nt it not im the for l'!l of o le pding qu est ion ~
PROSECUTION: Yes .
Q VJ ill you tell us wha t is me.ant by "b e sieged ar ea court-martial"?
f'l It is 2 court-martic> l sp ec1-Eill y est ablish(;(). in t he erec s
ins id e the cordon in the case of mart i al law b eing
declar ed.
PROSECUTION : I submit the qu estion ha s not been answe r ed.
The quest i on was , "Whrt is a be s;ieged erea? "
DEFENSE : No; I esked him vWhPt he meent by "b e sieged ar ea
court- ma rtial. 11 I think it is r t:s ponsive . I shall esk him
fur t her quest i ons to el abor a t e .
PROSECUTI ON : ull right; grn ohead .
Q Do you know to whp t prrticolpr t er rit orie s it would app l y?
Would it apply to t erritorw ~ ithin J apan Proper or to
t er r itorie s ou t side Jepen Proper, or to both t er ri tories?
PROSECUTION : Obje ction. ~he quest ion is l ead i ng , in
t hp t it sug ges ts the Ans wer. I woul d have no objection to the
question: 11 Do you know whpt pe rr ticulc> r area it app lie s to?"
D::~:t;':t;~JS E : I submit it i s not l e c:ding , Your Eonor. I he ve
cover ed t he entir e world, so f prr c:s I c?n s ee , in "J epAn Pr opt- r,
ou t side Japan Pr oper, either, orr both."
PROSECUTION: Sir, the v er w first question I objected to
wes ob ject ed to for the r eason tthPt it sugg ested th pt answe r,
thet it wrs l ead ing , end th e answer would ha ve come back "Yes .rr
Then I c>ske d thr t he define the word "b es i e ged t erri tory" so
t ha t we c ould und erst Pnd whe therr this men knew whe t he wes
t r l ki ng ab out. tnd t he v ery l as t questi on st a t es the territory,
J apPn Pr oper . I should like to have the witness do th e t es ti-fying
on this pa rticul2r point. I hpve no objection to
]:Ir . Furness ' l ePC. i ng on other pcoints, but c;s long es we ar e on
t his point I would like th e witmess to t es tify on this point.
PRESIDENT : The Law Me.l'!lber will rul e .
L AW r-~--Jif.iBER : The obj e ct ion is over ruled .
-3878-
'J1 0YODr .. .. D
~ Only J Rpe.n Pro per.
Q Do you know of any inst Rnc e whe r e such ~ bes ie ged area
court-marti e. l we. s s e t up?
f. Duri ng the J apane s e- Russo War, 8 b esieged ar e!e. court-mprtiC'l
was est <1 blished e.t Tekes hiki, in Kyus hu.
Q Wer e eny es t c>blished during this l E' st wer?
t The re wa s no such court-merti al es t e.b lished during the
l nst we r.
Q Now, among some of t he fl ee ts, did some of the fle ets h~ ve
no court-martial of their own?
~ During the early part of the war, I think ther e were some
fl ee ts whi ch had n o court-martir l. However, by the time
the end of th e w2 r WPS clos e , I think all of the fl ee ts
had cou rts-ma rti al.
Q You ere r eferring t o the time th2t you wer e s enior member
of the Legal ~ ff a irs Bureau, I t eke it?
[;. Yes.
Q I s it 2 f eet tha t the Navy Minister ha d exclusive
authority to s e t up a sp e cial court-martiel, 8nd that t he
Commende r in Chief of the Com0 ined Fleet, th e commanders
i n c hi ef of constituent flee ts, ~ nd the Chief of the
Nava l Gener el St e. ff he.d no a uthority wha t ev er to s e t up
special courts-mar ti al?
n That is corre ct.
Q And is it also true t hP t befor e any such court-me.rtie.l
could be s et up, the command ing offic er of 2 fl ee t hac. to
submit e r eq uest to the NAvy Minister st ~ ting the need
for it, and tha t when such court-merti .? l vJe.s s E.. t up, t hA t
f eet 1iv8 s announced by t he N<WY Minister t hro ugh a Navy
]finistry notice?
A Yes .
Q h.nd is it a f Bct the t t her e wer e t emporary courts-ma rtie l
s et up pursuant to this procedure in t he s pec i al minor
nava l district on He in~n Islend end i n the 25th Sp ecial
Nave l B2s e Force £t tmbon?
PROSECU~IO N : Will you fix th e time?
Q If your answer is yes, plepse st ate t he time , if you know,
when t ho s e t emporery co urts-me.rt ial wer e s et up.
A Ye s, the r e were t empor ~ ry courts-ma r t i al e strblished et
thos e plrc es , but I do not know the t i me , t he exr ct drtes .
Q In 1945, we s e t empor ary court-ma rti al s e t up in the 29 th
Sp cci el Na vPl Ba s e Force a t Hc l maher a ?
PROSECUTION: I obj ect to Wr. Furne ss' st e. ti ng th e time.
I s houl d like the wttne ss to ste. t e t he ti ~e .
DEFS NSL: t ll right. I hed not finis hed my qu es tion.
I will l er ve out the time.
-3879-
~ OIO D t . -D
PROSECUTIO N: You had bett er r e st ~ t e the question.
DEFENSE : Yes; I will withdraw th~ t que stion.
Q t"lso pur sup nt t o this procedur e vv hich you outlined, we. s a
t ~m porery c ourt-ma rtiel s e t up in th e 29th Spe ciel NPVPl
Bese Forc e a t Hrlma.here., the commending offic er of thet
sp ecial b a s e forc e holding the r e.nk of capte.in? Plee. s e
agein st e. te the ti me or the approxi ma t e time that this
hC'.ppcned if your pnsvvE: r is yes.
A Ye s. The yee.r WP S 1945, but I cennot r ecell t he month.
Q Wa s this s etting up of such court-martial in e nav el
bese f or ce e usuel or exceptione.l procedure?
~ It is a v ery rar e practice th Pt e court-mertie.l is s e t up
in s ne.vcl b es e forc e he.ving a me r ~ ce.ptain as th e
command ing officer.
Q If you knmv, cen you t ell us th e r ea sons it we s done in
t his CP Se?
t. This wes b c- ce. us e the si tuetion end condition wr. s such
that t he lieison b e t~ee n t he Ne. vy court-martiPl end
Ha l meher a w~ s not precticel or possible . The t is why a
spe cie. l court-martiel was esteblished a t He.lme.her8.
Q Now, is it cor re ct t he t during th e last we.r ma ny joint
Ar my- Nevy op e r~tions wer e conducted i n verious areas,
but t hP t ev en i n thos e c ase s of such combined ope r ction ,
in princ ipl e , the m ilit ~ ry personnel of the t.r my Here to
b e tried by t r my court-mer ti el, whe r ee.s t he n ilit s ry
personnel of t he Na vy wer e t o be tri ed by Ne.vy c ou rt-me
rti e l?
t. The t is corre ct.
Q lr\' e. s it, however, euthorized tha t -vvhen the loc eli t y in
whi ch t he e.ccused t r my personnel we r e stationed wa s cut
off fro m t he pl ace ~he r e t he t r my court- ma rti al we s si-t
ue. t ed , it wa s pe r missible to try them by Navy court- ma rtie .
C>nd t he: t, likew is e , when the loc ality wher e the accused
Ne vy per s onnel wer e loc e t ed we s cut off fro n the s ea t of
the Ne. vy c ourt-ma rti al, they could be tri ed by an t r my
court-mertiel loc pt ed in the sarl'E area whe r e the accused
we r e loc r-.t ed'?
A Yes, t he t wr s per mitted.
Q Did you ev er, howev er, hear of any ca s e s whe r e t r my
per s onne l wer e tri 0d by Nevy court- ma rti al, or Na vy
per sonnel wer e tried by an 1. r my court-m2 rti al?
fl. No.
Q Now , while you wer e the judiciary offic er of the court-ma
rti Pl of the Combined Fleet end concurrently the s enior
judici ar y officer of the court-martial of th e Sixth
Flee t, did you ev er rec eive eny r eport fro m yo ur subordina-t-a
li eut enant, leg al, who wa s alwa ys st a tioned ct Truk
wher e the Sixth Fle et h~d its headquarters, or from a nyone
els e e. t any time , any r eport or rumor th8t subrr.arines
und er that fle e t were eng age d i n the prectic e of annihi-l
at ing survivors or cr ew members of enemy ships sunk in
-3880-
•
TOYODt..-D
the I ndian Ocean or a n~v h e r e else?
PROSECUTION: Sir, I h?,Ve t wo objections to th?t question.
I do not beli eve that it would be in t he of f icic,l cours e
of t his witness ' busine ss to r eceive such r eports froQ his
judici r l officer.
The s econd obj ection is the t t h is lieut enBnt wa s not
el ways ettached to the Sixth Fle et. The t estimony is that he
wa s concurrs ntly the l ege l officer for the Fourth enG. the
Sixth Fl ee ts, end e ls o thPt he was d is pa tc hed by t his witne s s
to t hese fl ee ts to t rke cer e of th e l ega l business when there
WB S ?ny l egel business , Ther e is no evidence to sh ow tha t
t h is l eg Ell officer~ t r.is m~n 1 s s ubor di ne. t e , WAS Rl ways with
the Sixth Flee t.
In any event, I believe my first obj ection should tPke
cpr e of t he question.
DEFENSE : If t he Court pleese , t his witnes s ha s t es tifie d
thet he was th e s enior judiciary offic er of t ho Sixth Fleet,
hims elf; t hc:; t und er him WPS P li eut enC~n t, l ege l, who Yv PS con-curr
ently th e judicia ry off ic er for t he court-ma rti el of the
Fo urth end Sixth Flee ts. I think thet tPke s cer e of the
obj e ction. Thes e t v-~r o mE n compo sed th e entire l e g2 l org eniz R tion,
a s I und er st pnd it, of t he Sixth Fleet, If Mr. Deitch WEmts
me to bring thr-- t out or r ei t er Bt e it, I shall bE: very happy
to co so, br: caus e it is d i ff icult to r emember t E' stimony.
PROSECUTIO N: Sir, my main objection , which wa s unanswe r ed,
·w Rs t he t it we s not in the officia l cours e of t his mRn 1 s
·busine ss as the judici al offic er of t he Combined Fle et or of
the Sixth Flort t o r e ceive such r eports. Such an order to
annihila t e survivors would be an oper etionel ord er. If
J!Ir. Furness s hows the t it VvP S i n the officiel cours o of this
1men 1 s business to r eceiv e such r eports, I will withdr aw my
objection. But he first must l ey the groundwork befor e he asks
such a qu e s t i on,
DEF'El\TSE : Well, I she ll bE he.ppy to e.sk further ques tions.
I do not think I need t o l 2y any groundwork a s yet. I do ple.n
to esk furt her questions on this. I she ll follow whichever
proc ed ur e t hE: Qourt wishE'S r1e to follow.
PROS ~ C UT IO N : First I would like th e groundwork to be
.l r i d befor e we get Pny such t esti mony, to s how thet t his man
1 W~ s to get such r Pports.
Lt.'N N!EI:.ffiER : The obj ection is sust c- ined ?S to t he qu e stion
Rt the pr e s ent time , until the pr oper groundwork is lPid.
PR:ZSIDENT: The Court vd ll nov1 r eces s until El evE:n o 1 clock.
(r.t 1055 hours P r e c2ss wr s t eken until 1105 hours.)
-3881-
July 8, 1949
TOYODA-Y
PROSECUTION (Mr. Deitch): Let tne r ecord shov1 the Tribuna l
r econvened a t 1105, t he same pe r sonnel pre sent prior to the
r ec e s s being pr esent aft er the r ec e ss.
I r emind th e ~ itne ss he is still und er oa th.
DIRECT EXMH NATION (C ontinued)
Que stions by the def ens e (Mr. Furnes s):
Q Could you t ell us whethe r or not the li eut enant, l egal,
judicia ry offic er, who s erved concurr ently n s court-ma rtia l
officer of the 4th Flee t and th e 6th Fl ee t, wa s al ways
stationed a t Truk when the headquart ers of the 6th Fleet
v:a s loc a t ed nt Truk?
A Ye s, h e iva s.
PROSECUTIO N: Si r, if Mr. Furne ss would t ak e ca r e of
t ha t f irst ob j e ction f irst , we mi ght save some time , tha t is,
it be ing in h i s official course of busi ne ss to r ec eive such
repor ts. If the man says it vra s his off ic ia l cour se of busine ss
t he n he can go ahead.
DEFENSE: I will try to comply Y.r ith your 111ishe s , although
I think I should be a llowed to proc eed in my onn 1'ray.
Q Could you t ell us whether or not the annihi l a tion ef
survivors of the crews of sunk en ships vJOuld be an
ill ega l a ct and subj ect the per son orderi ng it to court-mar
t ia l und er the J apane se Navy ?
A Ye s , t hnt ':rould.
Q \r.Tould it hav e been the duty of the li eut enant, l ega l 7 vrho
wa s se rving a s the judicia r y offic er of the 6t h Fl eet,
to r eport it to you n s the judicia ry of f ic er of the court-ma
rti a l of th e 6th Fl ee t?
PROSECUTION : If I~r. Furne ss vri l l add t he YJords , ":i.f he
knewn' --
DEFSNSE : All right , if he hea rd of it.
PRO SECUTION: If he knew .
DEF:CNSJ::": : I f he heard of it; if he heard of such ma t te rs
ha ppening .
A Yes.
Q In tha t ca s e , if he had so r eported it, wha t would have
been your duty?
A An i nv e stiga tion i mmedi a t ely would be l a unched age i nst
the J 0.pane se Nevy per sonnel 1-_rho committed ill ega l a cts.
Q If tha t of fic er who wa s J•e sponsibl e had been a f l a g offic er,
tha t is, an of fic er of the raru{ of r ear admiral or above ,
1"7ha t ,-,ould ha ve bee n your duty?
A If ther e \Jer e a ny fl c:.g offic ers involved in such incid ents ?
sinc e the j urisdiction over fl a g offic e rs r e s t s ~ ith higher
courts-ma rti a l, the 6th Fl ee t court mar tia l ~ o u ld r ef er
-3882-
u, 1. ·1 L\ ., 949
th is mat t er to the higher c ourt-mar ti.a l .
Q 1!/ould you have had th e same duty i f you ~1. 1 d hea rd of it
from a ny source other t han t his lieutenar t, legal, who
was the judiciary officer servi ng with tt e 6th Fleet?
PROSECUTIOl~ : Objection. It d oesn 't make a1 y diff erence
whmt this man 1 s duty 'rould be i f he had heard . I thinl-r. the
evlidence mill bear out the fa ct t he man never t eard about it
so ~hat is the point in having all t his evidenc~ produ~ed
b efore this Tribuna l. It i s irrelevant and i rnm.1te r ial.
DEFENSE : :Mr. Deitch sa i d that I mus t l ay <t foundation
wh:lich I am now doi ng .
PROSECUT ION: The f ounda tio n 1,.va s laid a lo 1g time ago.
Nmw if J'jr. Furness will ask hi m if he had ever ;1ea rd such
rewort, I believe he will get his ans wer and th,;n we can go
on to something else.
LAVr FSlffiER: Obje ction overruled.
A It would hav e been the same .
Q Wa s the subma ri ne squadron which was operating in the
I ndian Ocean under the command of the 6th Fleet?
PROSECUTION: Ma y we fix the ti r~_e?
DEFENSE : At the time tha t you W8.1:'e the seni or jud icial
of~icer of the court-martial of the 6th Fleet .
A Ye s.
Q Did t his submarine squadron have any connection with the
Southvre st Area Fleet and, j_f so, wha t ?
A
Q
A
Q
A
P'iOSECUT I ON : Fix th e time.
DEFENSE : Du r i ng the same time.
They vre re receivi ng op erat io nal commands.
Were t heir of fenses during that time subject to the
c ourt-martial of the 6th Fleet ?
That is correct.
Could you tell us whethe r or not you heard from this
lieu tena nt, l ega l, who ~a s serving as judiciary officer
of the 6th Fleet or from a nyone else while you were the
senior judiciary officer of the court-martial of that 6th
Fleet that survivors of s unken enemy sh tps were be ing
annihilated i n t he Indian Ocean or any1''here els e ?
I have never received any such reports nor have I even
heard rumors co nc erning that.
Could vou tell us wheth er or ~ ot it was your pr actice,
~hen y~u were th e seni or judiciary officer of the Combined
Fleet , the lst, 2d , 3d and 6 th Fle ets , to try matters by
court-martial in the court-ma rti a l se tup in those fl ee ts
or to tr ansfer them aft e r you had investi ga ted them to
perman ent courts-ma rtia l and special courts-martial on land ?
-3 883-
, ~ - "ly 8' 1949
J.' O'YODA-Y
A The cases I handled we re t hose v;hich, after making
i nvesti g atio n ~ were turned over to the permanent courts-martial
on l and. That is the r eason that I ha ve never
had any courts-martial in the fleets while I 1rra s s erving
1•rith the fl e ets.
Q And no court-martial, so far as you we j:'e concerned, d1.1ring
your tour of duty, of which I have spoken, was ever held
on board a ship ?
A No.
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
As judiciary off icer of the courts-martial of the Combi ned
Fleet, the lst, 2d, 3d and 6th Fle ets, is it correct tha t
you examined re ports of disciplinary action s carried out
by ea ch fl eet and inve stigated -vvhe ther the jud gments were
prop er or 1ot?
Tha t is cor re ct.
And is it correct that each r e spective fl e et had about
t wo or three such c a ses a month which were re po rted t o
you a s the judiciAr y officer?
That is corx·ect.
Is it correct that i n the Navy d isciplinary punishment
could be i nflict ed for mi nor offenses which did not
co!1sti tut e a crime under I mper i a l Ol."d i'1.3nce--naval
disciplina ry punishment ordi nance , KAIGUN-SHOBATSU-REI ,
vthich had bee n e sta bli sh ed and promul ga t ed long befo r e
the war ?
Tha t is corr ect.
Is it correct t ha t t hose v.rho had pow er of punishment in
the Na vy were at th e lowe st l evel: d ivision office r s
and cap t a ins of ship s and ve ss els und er the comma nd of
th e command ers of de stroyer divisio n s, subma rine divisions,
etc.; and ' tha t they had disciplina ry power over t he ir
subord inat e s who vJere petty off i c e r s and ranks below
pe tty offic ers ?
Th e povver of punishment over noncommissioned officers
and b e low was held by the division officer; but in such
organizations a s d e stroyer divisio n s, th e capta in of
each d e stroyer had th e p owe r, first or directly, to
punish petty officers and below.
1:1i'hen you say noncommissioned officers, do you r efer to
vra rrant of fice r s and pe rsonnel below the rating of warrant
officer?
No, only p etty of ficers and men belovv tha t r a nk .
Did the so-call ed SHOKATSU CHO, °Conp etent Chief," such
as c a ptains of ship s and ves sels , co@uand ers of units,
di.rectors of offic e s a nd schools ~ chiefs of bureaus of
th e Navy l'Iinistry , s enior ,iudicia ry offic e rs of courts-ma
rtial, have the power of such d isciplinary punishment
over their subordinate pe rsonnel , both military and civilian'
That is corre ct.
And so f a r as thi s disci plinary punishment 11a s conc erned,
-3 884-
;- , ~~ 1 8 , 1949
'l'CJ ~_ODA -Y
did the CI-IOKAN, that is, the Chief of the Naval General
Staff, col1llr.and ers i n chie f of the naval districts,
comnw. nders in chief of th e minor naval districts,
commanders in chief of fleets, have power of disciplinary
punishment over only personnel nho were outside the
jurisdiction of the SIIOKATSU" CHO, "Competent Chief"?
A That is correct.
Q You have already t e stified as to the court-martial law.
Can you t e ll us whether in regard to this disciplinary
punishment law the Command er in Chief of th e Combi ne d
Fleet and commander in chief' of the constituent fle ets
were on the same level, that is, ea ch was investe~ nith
disciplinary punishment only over the SHOKATSU CHO and
the personnel of the headqua.rters dire ctly under his ovm
command?
PR.OSECUTION: Again I say the re gulations, which are before
this Tribunal, are the best evidence. Thel~e is no need to
':·raste th e time of this Tribunal asking such questions and
having them transl ated.
DEFENSE: I don't think the regulations are entirely
cl ea r and I for one find them rath er difficult to und er stand .
PROSECUTION: Mr . Furness i s not clarifying the r egulations
by stating the qu es tion and askirn.g for a yes an sner. I would
be satisfi ed to have Pr. Furne ss r ead the entir e statement and
ge t it ove r ,-ri th. We have wasted!. the rrhol e morning. Hr . Furne ss
could have read that statement i rn. a half an hour and we could
have be en fin ished by t his time. The ~ itn es s could have l eft
the stand an hour ago. There is nothing useful being ga i ne d
by t he exao ination in the form i rn. Dhich it is a t present being
conduct ed.
A
Q
A
Q
DEFENSE : Is that an obj ection to this que stion?
PROSECUTION: It certainly is.
LAW ~1ET~BER: Objection over.t"uled.
That is correct.
Also, so far a s disciplinaryr punishment VJa s conc erned--
that is , t his navy disciplinary law--is it correct that
t he NGVY :!Jinister rvas the on ly person ':'.'ho had the right
to i nf lict such disciplinary punishment on flag officers
by order of the Emp eror and that the Command er in Chief
of th e Combined Fleet had no power of disci plinary punish-ment
over commanders in chi e f of constituent fle ets for
any mi sdeeds committed by them?
That is correct.
Is it correc t to say that the commanders i n chief of
flee ts had the right to proGulgate , in occupied t e rr itories
on their orn authority, mi li ta.ry lar·r--tha t is, GLJNRITSU-KA
IGI or GUNBATSU-REI--whicb w·as applicable to persons
VJho wer e neither Japane s e subj ec ts nor und er the
-3 885-
: ·,tl y G, 1949
TOYODA-Y
jurisdiction of Japan?
A Ye s, they did.
Q And ua s that applicable to any per sons subj ect to the
court-martial law?
A No.
Q Is it correct that prisoners of war could not be tri ed
under the GU~~ITSU or the GUNRITSU-KAIGI?
A That is corr ect. The courts-martial law sti pulat e s tha t
prisoners of war will be tried by courts-martial.
Q Wer e any occupi ed t erritor:li e s und er the lst, 2d, 3d and
6th Fleets or did they consist entir ely of surfac e units
end have no occupied ar ea s und er them?
A They uer e a ll surface units.
Q And they had no occupied t ce rri tori e s under them, is that
correct?
A That is correct.
Q And then , a s I understand it, they issued no GUNRITSU
and se t up no GUNRITSU-KAICGI?
A That is correct.
Q Did the offic er s of t he judicial corps, attached to
fleet headquar t ers ·which h~ad GUN-nTSU and GU:NHITSU-KAIGI,
have charge of a ll busines~ ar ising under such matters?
A Ye s.
Q 1_~'ras a GUiffiiT~su issued by tlhe headquarters of the Combined
Fle et in December 1941?
A Yes, it wa s.
Q Could you tell us whether cor not thn t GUNRITSU was eve r
appli ed and whe ther or not any GUNRITSU-KAIGI vm s a t any
time estab li shed by the Co~bined Fleet?
A Dur ing my t enur e of office there wa s no such case, and
I under stand that previous to my t 5.me ther e y.rere none.
PROSECUT ION: Will 1-!r. Furmess norJ defj_ne "GUNRITSU" and
"GUNRITSU-KAIGI" so tha t anyone who r ead s the record r!i ll know
Dha t he is t alking about?
DEFENSE: 1:J ell, I ''Jill ask the int erpre t er to.
PHOSECUTION: The se words :have been us ed as if everyon e
knows wha t they mean . Now I arm nsking !-:r . Furness to define
them.
PRESIDENT: VJe have cove r e~ d tha t in the regulations.
P?tOSECUTIO :'f: But it shoul.d be in a t this point. If a ny
reviewer reads this, he will ha ve to look a ll through the
re cord.
PRESIDENT: There is surel.y a r ef er enc e to this matter
in the record .
-3 886 -
TOYODA -Y
PROSECUTION: Sir, the point I am making noVJ is that
anyone who picks up this portion of the record mill never kno1v
~h a t it mean s unl es s he goe s through the entire record.
PRESIDENT: Let the record shm'J a t this sta ge a r ef erenc e
to the regulations that have be en submitted as a previcus
exhj_bi t.
DEFENSE: I could a sk the int er pr et er to tr anslate it.
PRESIDENT: i'Jhy not l et us ge t on? 1 ~:e cannot do better
tha n the r egulat ion s.
DIRECT EXA!<U NATION (Continued)
Questions by the defense (Mx· . Furness):
Q Could you tell us wha t your understandi ng wa s as to the
reasons 1'.7hy t his Gill'JRITSU r;~as issued by the Combined Fle et?
PROSECUTIO N: Sir, I would like to he2r this definition.
I 1•rould like to hea r the word "GUNRITSU" sta t ed i n the English
l anguage and then have it trans l a ted into J op2ne s e by the
interpreter. After n.l l, we are a sking the se que stions in the
Engl ish l nngu.0.ge nnd they .n_ re supposed to be tx·n.n sl r. t ed .
Hr. Furness can d efine it . I pould like to hnve a
definition n o~'' • 1"'Je a l~ e hn.ving the se que stions in English "',nd
it should be stn. t ed so th<l t we cn.n underst and them in Eng lish.
PRES I DENT: The L21V Hember vrill rule.
LA1i.f I<I!IJIIBER : The i nt erp r et er ;~r i 11 trnnsl r.. t e the trro t erms
for the benefit of the Tribunal.
(The i nt erpre t er s referred to dictionaries.)
FriES ID:Gl\TT : Y e s~ ITr . Deitch.
PROSECUT IO N: I qould like to point out the t erms are
not such th ~ t they ar e known to in t ~rpre t e rs without first
checking the J~pane s e dictionary. They ar e t e chnic al t erm s
mor e or l e ss.
DEFENSE : It mo.y ~ lso follor; thnt it is a t erm v,rhich is
very difficult to transla te i nto English. It is a t erm mhich,
if the Court understands whr> t it means? it seems to me it is
proper to use in that sense--to us e it in Ja pane s e r~ther than
English.
PROSECUTION: Si:c , I.!r. Furne ss has be en v.. s ing the V'ord s ,
1'spe cit'11 courts-mBrtial," "temp or o.ry courts-ma rtia l ?" " GUl\TRITSU, rr
"GD1lRIT SU-KAIGI." He mor e or l e ss us e s the Jap ane s e '7hen he
pl ee se s or the E'.1glish "Then he pl en se s. If he is to use the
Eng lish l nnguage , I suggest he stick to the Eng lish l anguage .
I don 't think th e v: ords, "GUNRIT SU" or "Gill'JRITSU-KAIGI11 are
hard to tra nsla t e .
INTERPRETER: They a re, though.
-3887-
July 8, 1949
TOYODA-Y
"GUN:S. ITSU-KAIGI" is usunlly tr a nsL21ted "milit r1 ry tribuna l"
a s contrasted to "c ourts-me.rti cl.n "GUNR ITSU" -- mil it.:J.ry l aw;
in t his CRs e , nava l l aw . But then, a s f a r as military l aw ,
na va l lm-v or na vnl l"egul ntions are conc erned, the re will be
a bout seven or eight Jacnne se ~ ords that have to be tra nsla ted
exa ctly t he same but th~ c ontents of which would a ll be diff er ent.
DEFENSE: Might this be a sugg0 stion: tha t the GUI'ffiiTSU-KAIGI
is the military tribuna l or Pilitary commission, .:md the
GUNrt iTSU is the regul ntion or order VIh ich authorized it to b e
se t up a nd define s its jurisdiction ::>.nd 1•;hnt it may try?
PROSECUTION: I am not prepa r ed to a cc ept such suggestion.
The int erpr et er j ust sa id there are ap proxima t ely seven
d iff er 0nt mean i ng s t o the r.rord "GUNIGTSU'; --
I NTERPRETER: No, it's the other way ar ound.
PROSE CUT IOl'J: I ,.., ould like to hn ve the question sta t ed in
English. If Mr. Furne ss cannot sta t e the que stion in English
I sugg e st vre go on to some other question.
PRESIDENT: The Law l'-1embe r v.Jill e.dvis e the Tribunal.
LAVJ J'1EHBER: It appe11r s that the two t erms are t echni cal
ter ms r ef erring to cel"tain t ype s of courts in th e Japc-mese l\f[l vy
or J apa ne se l an And ar e not susc ep tible to tra nsla tion into
exa ct English equivalents. We hav e in the re cor d r egul ations
se tting up the var ious Japanese courts. It vrould app0ar thnt
th e a t tempt to us e t he English equivalent would add to comple t e
confusion i n the record. By the ref er ence to documents v:hich
a r e a lr eady i n evidence it is very ea sy to find out vha t the
jurisdiction of t hose pa r t icul ar courts wa s .
DEFENSE: I thiru{, also , if Your Honor pl ea se , that
~~ . Deitch, when he wa s putting in his prosecution evid enc e ,
use d exactly the same t erms and examined ~ itn e ss e s t he same ryay
tha t I have.
PROSECUT I ON : There we re definition s us ed i n the prose cu-tion
's evidence immedia t ely follo1:ring such J apa nese words.
DEFENSE~ You must know tha t definition; I sugges t you
s t a t e it.
PROSECUTION: Tha t is exactly vrh a t I ha'le been trying to
ge t r1r. Furne ss to do for th e l a st half-hour. He is a sking the
questions~ I am not a sking the questions. If he doesn't know
~ ha t the definition is he shouldn't ask the question.
DEFENSE: This may be o£'f-the -r ecord , but I suppose this
Tribunal r::i ght be consid 0red a GUlf...l-l_ITSU -KAIG I nnd the ord et· s
se tting it up a GUNRITSU: I don't kno·w.
PROSECUTION: Now ]1r . Ful"ne ss hDs offered another sugg e stio r:
different from his first so t he Tribunal can see thnt no mat t er
wha t he sa ys conc 0rning the se words he do e s not have knowledge
of the mea ning ~ and ther efor e I suggest he put it in the Eng lish
-3888-
J r;l_y 8, 1949
TOYODA-Y
language .
Q
A
Q
DEFENSE; : I wi 11 pl" oce ed n s th e Law Hemb er sugge sted.
·~na t wa s the r ea son for the issuance of t his GUNRITSU,
or military r egula tion, by the Combined Fl ee t?
This GUNHITSU, or military regul a tion, was established
du.rj_ng the tenure of my pr ed ecessor and therefore I wa s not
pre sent when it W[! S established. However, I be lieve tha t
the reason for the establishment or ena ctment of t his
GUNRITSU v1<1 s because the Japan e se N2vy might occupy some
territory in the f uture.
At the time it wa s issued, that is, in Dec ember 1941,
is it corre ct tha t it had not ye t been settl ed wh ether the
Combined Fleet would have any jurisdiction over occupied
territories?
PROSECUTION: Obj ection. This nava l l~egulation which ;:m s
pa ssed in Dec ember 1941 has been mentioned severa l time s, but
we d on't ~ no w wha t the contents of the regulation are , to sta rt
off with; and , i n the second pl a c e, this witnes s sa id tha t he
~a s not f amilia r with it, tha t his pr edece ssor handled the ma tt er.
In vi ew of the f act tha t he is not f omiliar ~ ith the ma tter, I
doubt whether he can testify on this l a st question.
DEFENSE : I submit tha t he can . He is a m.:m of long
experience. I think he attained the highest rank a s l ega l
offic er in t ho J apanese Navy--there may have been r. V:ic8 Admiral,
I don't knou--and I submit that his t es timony has probative
value.
LAW I"EJIJIBER : I can't follo>:J vJha t probative va lue th e
t e stimony ha s u pon that point. I would be gl ad to hear an
exp l ana tion.
DEFENSE: At the time that this GUJ\TRITSU was issued, it
had not yet been settled whethe r or not the Combined Fle et would
have any jurisdiction over occupied t erritori e s. I ref er, if
the Court please, to defense Exhibit G, •;rhich is a "Restricted
Ordinance (NA IREI)" issued 10 April 1942, v1hich sta tes in pa ragrar
2: "The Command er in Chief of any of the are a fl ee ts belonging
to the Combined Fleet is subject to the command of the Comr1and er
in Chi ef of the Combined Fleet, exc ept for matters of military
administra tion of occupi ed t erritory. 11 Tha t is defense Exhibit
G, _• r: cord pnge 1196.
PRESIDENT: Ye s, r1Tr . Deitch.
PROSECUTION: Defense still ha s not shown ~?hy this rn:::tn
should have such knowl edge. Why is he an ex pert on this just
because he wa s a n admiral, just because he was a judicial
officer? Why does he know this?
LAW ]I[ENBER: Obj ection overruled ; he may answ er.
A In April 1942 th e fleet regula tion wa s r evised and in t his
r evi s ion it wa s provided that the administra tion of the
-3 889-
Jpl_y 8, 1949
'1.'0::0DA-Y
occupied territories would be r emoved f rom thos e powers
entrusted ~ ith the Combined Fle et. Ther efore I pr e sume
thot up to that time the Combined Fle et had the jurisdiction
over the occupi ed territories.
Q Could you tell us whether or not the Comma nd er in Chi ef
of the Combined Fleet had any right to interfere or to
review any of the judgments r end ered by the military
tribuna l, GUNRITSU-KAIGI?
PROSECUTION: The witne ss ha s alrea dy t e stified to that
ea rli e r this morning; ther e is no need to have it two, three
or four times from the same witne ss.
DEFENSE~ The witness testified to the review of court-ma
rtia l judgments-- judgments rend er ed by courts - martial, v-.rh ich
I think in Japanes e is called GUNPO-KAIGI. I am asking him now
about a differ ent typ e of tribunal. He ha s not t e stifi ed to
t his a s yet.
PROSECUTION: I believe the r ecord will show he ha s.
LA1~T MEND3ER : Obj ection ov errul ed.
A You say, "milita ry tribuna l," Hr. Counsel, but INhere wa s
this milita ry tribunal tri a l h eld? In other words, whos e
military tribuna l is this; wher e is it e sta blished?
Q Any milita ry tribunal, GUNRITSU-·KAI GI, set up by constituent
fl eets of the Combined Fl ee t whic h had j urisdiction ove r
the military administration of occupi ed t erritori e s.
A No, the Comma nder in Chie£ of the Combi ned Fl ee t did no t
have such power. That power r e sted ,-.rith the commander in
chief of the fleet which he ld such milita ry tribunal and
~hich had such milita ry r e gulation.
PRESIDENT: This Court will now recess unti 1 1330 hours
t his a ft e rnoon.
At 1205 hours a rec e ss was t aken.
-3890-
JuJ.ly 8 , 1949
TO:lYODA- Y
AFTERNOON SE SSIO N
Th e Tribuna l me t, pursuc nt to recess, a t 1330 hours.
BAILIFI'': Th e Wa r Crim.e s Tribun21 l is nmv in session.
PROSECUTION (1~. Deitch) : Let tthe rec ord sho ~ the Tribunal
roc convened a t 1330, a ll present prior:· to the recess being pres e nt
e f~ter the .re c e ss with the exception of Colonel Pierce .
PR:2;SIDENT: Let the recot·d shm·J th2 t Colonel Pierce is
ab ssent this a ft e r n oon on officia l business.
PROSECUTION: I remind th e v.Titne ss he is still under oath.
Kilmo YUFU, a :·d tness for the d e fense, ha ving be en previously
suCTo rn , r e sumed the stand and t e stified through int e rpre t ers as
f 0 J 11 0 1iJ s :
DIRECT EXA~UNATJION (Continued)
QuQes tions by the d efense (Mr . Furness):
Q Did you a s th e jud icia ry offic e r' of the court - marti a l of
tpe Combin ed Fleet end of the lst, 2d, 3d a nd 6th Fl eets
e ver r ec eive a ny cop i e s or r epor ' ts of jud goents of any
military tribuna ls, GUNRITSU-KA rGI?
A No.
Q You t es tifie d tha t on the 25th rnf November 1 944 you
transf e rred to the Lega l A ff ~ irs1 Bureau of the Na vy
Ninistry. Could you tell us whe;the r or not a ft e r you
r eport ed for duty th er e --
DEFE NSE : Do you vvn nt me to go om a sk i ng l ea ding que stions,
Mr •• De itch ?
PROSECUTION: Ye s, pl ea s e .
DEFENSE : I v; i thdraw tha t ques ti_on then .
Q Is it correct tha t a fter you we r ·e tra nsf e rred on the 25th
of Noverab e r 1944 to the LGga l .Af'f a irs Bur eau of the Navy
Ministry you lea rned tha t ar oundl S ep temb Gr 1944 the chief
of the Na val Affairs BurGau, Navry Ministry, ha d sent
communications sugg e sting to chi.efs of sta ff of all fleets
that regula tions entitled " Mi li t ;a ry Law for the Puni shmGnt
of Aircraft Cre-ws" should be e st;a bli shed, and tha t a round
October 1944 th e ch i ef of the L0 ga l Affairs Bur eau had
notifi ed the judicial corps offLcers attached to fleet
h ea dqua rt e rs a s to wh a t e1 cts conur1itted by enemy cdr crews
should be con sid er ed crime s tria.ble by military tribunals
s e t u p under this regulation?
A I know of those f a cts bec ause a f 'ter I a ssumed my post a s
the s enior burea u me mber of the :Lega l Aff a irs Bureau of
the Na vy 1Unistry in November l9l44 I saw thos e mc_t t c rs in
the documents in th e Bure a u.
-3891-·
<~l " lY 8 , 1949
TOYODA-Y
~ Did you ev er receive this notific ation rrhile you held
your post a s chief judici8ry offic er of the court-ma rti al
of th e Combined Fleet?
A I did no t r ec eive tha t notific a tion.
Q We re you a t tha t tioe on boa.!rd the battle ship ~.-"USASHI c. nd
wa s the ba ttleship a t tha t time participa ting in the
battle of Leyte Gulf?
PROSECUTION: Obj ection .
DEFENSE: Hr . Deitch a sked mre not to a sk a l eading que stion
on tha t.
PRESIDENT: Nr. Furne ss 5 i n v i ew of t hi s cooperation on
l eading questions, I thirLk it mi glht b e advisable to t ake t he
r eque st by r.rr. Deitch for omission of a l eading question befor e
th e translntion.
DEFENSE: Yes 5 sir .
PRESIDENT: Only if it is con tra ry to th e a rrangen1ent tha t
you hove made between yourselves.
Q Could you t ell us 1•rhere your office a s the judicia ry
offic er of the court-Ma rtial of the Comb ined Fl eet wa s
during Sep t ember a nd Oc tob er 1944?
A On vvar shi p HUSASH I.
Q And a t that time wha t ,m s th e warship EUSASHI doing?
Wa s it engag ed in ope r a tion or wn s it at anchor, or wha t?
A In Sep t ember the ba ttl e ship MUSASHI was a nchor ed a t a pl a c e
c8ll ed Lingga south of Singapore. Then, I cannot r eca ll
the exact da t e but after tha t, it moved out to p2 rticipa te
i n the Ley t e ba ttle.
Q Did it partic ipa te ?
PROSECUTION~ Obj ection. All t his is i rre l evant. Who
c ar e s wher e the MUSASHI wa s? Who cares whe ther it participa t ed?
lJVha t does it have to do r.;ith the i s sue s ? The dir ect examina tion
V·78 S sta rted the first thing this morning and ha s c ontinued.
Soce of the se que stions might havre relevc~ncy but I ce.nnot see
the r el evancy of t his que stion or' the ma t eria lity to the issue s.
Ll\Y7 ~'IElffiER: Let the que stiom be transl a t ed first.
Obj ection overrul ed ; he may answer.
A Yes, it did.
Q Did it survive that battle?
PROSECUTION: Objection. It i s irrelevant, imua t er i al;
I be li eve it is a lready i n the r e cord.
DEFENSE : Do you want me to Dsk a l eC~d ing question ?
PROSECUTION : No , ,-,ha t I v·onld like you to do , Mr . Furn e ss,
;j 1'.i..;r 2 , 1949
TOYODA-Y
is to get this examination over wi.th as quickly as possible
without asking a lot of immaterial questions.
DEFENSE: I have no doubt you would like the defense '1ot
to put i n any evidence, but we are putting in QVidence--
LAW ~IIE~ffiER: Objecti on overruled.
A She was sunk by attacks of American airplane at Sibuyan Bay.
DEFENSE: I vvill ask the witness if he can spell it.
WITNESS: I think it is S-i-b-u-y-a-n Bay, at Manila on
the 24th of October.
DEFENSE: I wish to confer with the interpreter.
(Defense counsel conferred with the interpreter.)
I NTERPRETER: Oh, it could be "Sea." He used the word "Bay."
PROSECUTION: What was that question ~t!r. Furness put to
the interpreter?
DEFENSE: I asked him whether it could be trans lated
"Sibuyan Sea" because that is the way the battle is usually
known . I did it perfectly openly and I said I was go ing to
confer with him. If you had a ny objection you sho uld have
objected.
WITNESS: Yes, I believe it is called Sibuyan Sea.
Q And were al l documents relating to cou.t"t-martial ma tters
on board the MUSASHI when she was sunk?
A Yes.
Q You stated that these communications were 8. ddressed to the
chiefs of staffs of fleets. Did you ever receive any
communication fro m the c hief of staff of the Combined
Fleet or the chief of staff of the First Task Fleet or
any other 'fleet regarding it 1mrhen you were the judiciary
officer of the court-martial of the Combined Fleet?
No.
Q You testified that you saw ce~tain documents when you became
t he sen~o r member of the Legal Affairs Bureau of the Navy
Mi nis try. Were these regulations applicable only to any
fl iers vrho had committed war crimes?
It applied only to those enemy flying personnel who conwitted
wartime crimes.
And i n addi t:i_on to this document that you testified to,
did you see a document re gardi ng the establishment of a
military tribunal which would try such cases?
Yes .
You ar e familiar, are you ~ ot, with the fact that the lOth
Area Fleet was newly organized in February 1945?
DEFENSE: Hold it, for the translation, for a minute.
-3893-
,T1 1 lyr 8 ~ 1949
~' O l CJD A-Y
PSOSECUTION: I ob j ect.
DEFENSE: Becaus e it is leading?
PROSECUTION: Ye s.
DEFEN SE~ All r i gh t.
Q Do you know when the lOth Area Fl eet was organized?
A Around February of 1945 ; that is !ITJY recoll ection.
Q While you 1Nere seniol" member of t lhe Le:-';al Affairs Bureau
of the late Navy I:i ni stry? vver e aJny such communications
re lative to military re gulations Sor the punishment of
Allied fliers who had committed war crimes or for the
setting up of a military tribuna l to try such crimes sent
t o the headquarters of the lOth A~ ea Fleet by the Judicial
Affairs Bureau of the Na vy Hinist.Try?
PROSECD~ION~ He has already t e stifi ed that these
cornmu n ic a tions we re sent out pr:ior to ithe time he took t his
positi on and that was pr ior to February 1945- -sometime in
September or Oc tober 1944--so we have ithe answer, unl e ss
I~ r . Furness wants the same answer. It is just a waste of time
by asking th e same question .
DEFENSE : If the Court please, I am asking whether any
si mila r r egulation s wer e sent out to tbe l Ot h Fle et after he
became th e senior member of the Lega l ~fairs Bureau of the
Na vy Ji i nistry . It couldn 't have been sent out in September;
the l Oth Area Fleet didn't exist then.
PROSECUTION: We ll, then, if Lr. Furness wants to stipulate
that he expects th e ansvJe r ''No," I am q illing to stipulate.
DEFENSE: Let the wi tness ans~ner.
PR:::..;SIDEl'll': The Law :r~embe r 1·vill rule.
LAW HF_;:;PBER: Objection overruled.
A l\Io.
PRESIDE NT: We appear to be ge t ting into controversial
ma tt er s now. I think it will be advis.sJ.ble to abrogat e the
ag re eme nt on l eading questions, 11.1." , Furness ~ a nd ask such leadi ng
que s t ions a s you think yo u can i n a ccordance with our usual
procedure.
Q Could you t ell us vrhether or not a:tny naval commander had,
except for of f ens es punishable by the disc i plinary law
r egarding whi ch you have t es tifi ed , any ri ght to condemn
or punis h for offense s wi thout tr ~a l , tha t is, either under
GUNPO-KAIGI, court··mal"tial, or GU11THITSU ·-KAIGI, mi litary
tribunal?
A Absolut ely not .
Q Could you t ell us wh ether or not trials in ab sentia were
-3 894 -
1.'
1.: ,j' '. y 8 ' 1949 F 'J.'OYODA-Y
I.
I·
authorized; tha t is, trials without the accused's being
pr e sent were authorized under any circumstances?
A In principl e the accused must appear at his own trial;
tha t is , he must be present. However, if the penalty
meted out wa s li ghter than fine, that is, in minor
offens es his absenc e wa s recognized; that is, he could
be absent.
DEFENSE: I would like to conf er with the interpreter,
if you want to come over.
PROSECUTION: Go ahead.
DEFENSE : Is tha t "light er than fin e" or "the punishment
wa s a fine or lighter"?
INTERPRETE::i.: Fine or li ght er -- I will have to check tha t
with him.
WI TNESS: Lighter than and including fi ne s.
Q Did any commander of naval forc e s have the authority to
issue any order tha t a prisoner of war who s tole f ood
could be punished after - tria l by GUNRITSU-KAIGI or punished
wi t hout any tri al·-·hat ever:?
A No.
Q Did any naval command er have th o legal authority to declare
t he entir e ar ea of a fle et forbidd en t erritory in ryhi ch
per sons found , Allied soldiers vvhe ther i n uniform or not,
woul d be tr ea t ed as spi e s punishable after trial by
GUNRIT SU-KAIGI or punishable rvithout any trial ?
PROSECUTION: Obj ection. Ther e is no ba sis for that
question. I bel i eve Mr. Furness ha s in mind some evid enc e
befor e t h is Tribunal which wa s to the eff ect tha t such an order
v'la s based on a naval r egulation or a DAIKAISHI or something to
tha t eff ect , and the evid enc e does not indic a t e tha t the order
wa s issued other than a s based on such r egulation.
DEFENSE: That is d efinit ely not a f act. There is not a
t .r ac e of evid enc e thnt any such order wa s issued by DAll(A I SH I.
Tha t is a r egul a tion which would be issued by the Navy Mi nist er
and the chi ef of the General Staff. I say ther e isn't a trac e
of any such evid enc e .
PROSECUTI ON: I ·will a sl~ I1r . Furne ss to sta te vvha t the
basis of his que stion is. I believe I have sta t ed the f a cts
corr ectly, tha t the r ea son t his ord er wa s issued wa s tha t it
\','a s ba sed on a nava l r egula tion. Nm'l if IIr. Furness can sta t e
other f Bcts I would like to hear them .
LAW r.~HBER: Wha t is the put·pose of this line of que stioning ':
DEFENSE: Your Honot"', I t hink t h ere is some evi denc e --
of course, the def en se di spute s i t--tha t loc al command ers did
i ssue such orders. It is ver y vague evid ence but we fee l we
have to meet it. I am aski ng if any naval command er ha d any
-3 89 5-
J~ 1 :.y 8 , 1949
'J_'Oi_ ODA- Y
authority to issue such ord er . We c ert a inly have the right to
meet evidenc e •vh ich the pros ec ution a rgue s and ha s submitt ed,
wheth er it is good evid ence or not.
PR OSECu~ IO N : The poi nt I am making is tha t t his order
~a s ba sed on a nava l r egulation , a ccording to the evidence
befor e this Tribuna l. Nov; if ]1r. rurne ss a sk s t his witne ss
if ther e wa s such a naval r egul a tion, I n ould have no ob je ction
b ecaus e .he is supp osed to be ca ll ed a s an expe rt on nava l
r egula t1ons.
LAW T·:rEMBER: Ob j ection overrul ed .
A No, they did not.
Q Di d you ev er hear of any such r egul a tion be i ng issued in
t he for m of DAIKAISH I , NAI RE I , or any other form wha tso ever?
A No.
DEFENSE : ~f the Cour t pl ea se , I bel i ev e the r 0st of t he
t es timony r el a t e s to chara cte r evid enc e and I v1 ill now put it
i n the for r1 of l ea ding qu e sti ons unl e ss Ur . De itch obj ects ? or
unl e ss th e Court vmnts me to avoid l ead ing que stions.
PR OSE CUTION~ Why don 1 t you r ead it?
DEFENSE: I uoul d r ather a sk que stio ns.
PROSECUTION : Then I a sk tha t hi s chara cter evidenc e be
r e st r ict ed to such fa cts as t o whet he r by reput a tion he had a
go od or bad r eputatton, and th::~ t is all. Tha t i s the only
ehar a cter evid ence that should be adm i ss ible .
DEFENSE: Tha t ha s be en a r gued ma ny t ime s. Do I Deed to
a rgue i t a gain?
LA11J :tJ::C)IffiER: I s there any diff erenc e be t rJeen t his vv i t ne s s 1
t e stimony as to the character of t he a ccused a nd tha t of pr ior
vri t ne sse s ?
DEFE :~ sE : No, I don't t hink so exc ep t t ha t this ·witne ss
ha s some ba sis, having been his l egal of fic e r.
LNi<T J{'::.-YBER: Will th e def ens e limit the ir exa mina tion to
tha t pa rticular part? The r e st of it ha s been covered s ev er a l
time s by other witne sse s.
DEFENSE : I ;;;J ill a slc hi m:
Q 1:-ihil e you vJere judiciary offic er of the court-martial of
th e Comb ined Fl ee t, is it a f a ct tha t the command er s in
chief of tha t Comb i ned Fl eet we r e Admira l Koga and Admiral
Toyoda?
A Ye s.
Q And d i d you a lso serve a s j udicia ry off ic e r of th e court-ma
rtia l of the 1st and 2d Fl eets f rom J a nua ry 1934 to
December 193 5?
A Ye s.
.Jnly 8 , 1949
'l'OYODA-Y
Q And at tha t time was Admiral Toyoda the chief of staff
of th e Combined Fleet and concurrently chief of staff of
the First Fl ee t?
A Yes.
Q Could you tell uo what you observed with regard to him
during those t u o periods, that is, ~ ith regard to his
knowledge of rules, laws and regulations and whether or
not he insisted on their being adhered to?
PRO SECUTION: Objection. The question has nothing "~Vhateve r
t o do with character.
LAW METiJ.BER: Obj ection overruled.
A From J anuary 1934 to December 1935, while I v..ras the judiciary
offic er of the courts-martial of the First and Second Fle ets,
Admiral Toyoda was, as it has been mentioned before, the
chi ef of staff. He ~a s very faithful in regards to
obs ervance of all l aw s, rul e s and r egulations. Of course,
a lmost nll of the Navy officers und er ·whorn I have served
v1ere fair and faithful. Ad :.liral Toyoda 1va s particularly
faithful to observance of rul e s and r egulations and th e
f a ct that he was particularly f aithful, even among all other
officers, ha s r ema ined in my memory to this date.
Q Could you give us any examples?
A During my service "~'J i th t he First a nd Second Fleets in
1934 and ~~!he n Ad mira l Toyoda wa s the chie f of staff, one
of the flying officers of the a ir squadron under the
command of First Fl eet one day bec ame intoxicated and
dr e ssed in the Japane s e sleeping tog, or pajama, board ed
one of th e pl anes and op erated the plane in the air.
Nmv this , of cours e , wa s conduct unbecoming any effie er
and it w2 s f elt tha t this typ e of performance was detri-menta
l to the military discipline, e specia lly of the Air
Force. Upon le arning of this inc1d ent I forwarded a strong
reque st to the captain of the ship under r.Jhom this flier
wa s s erving and asked th e capta in to take strong action
to pu~ish this offending flier. However, at that time the
Japanes e Air Force was in its cradle stage, that is, th e
beginning stage, and there was a strong opposition from
various quarters that any such drastic action against any
of the fliers ~·JOuld harm the morale of the JapG.ne se Navy
Air Forc e . I was thus pr e ssured against meting out any
puni shment. I consulted with Admiral Toyoda on this
matt er and he supported my stG.nd strongly a.nd stated that
the offender must be punished . Judging from this it can
easily be sa id tha t he Da s very f a ithful in r egard s to
obs ervance of rules and r egulations, nnd so much so that
this incident is still in my memory to thi s date as one
of the examples of Admiral Toyoda 1 s attitud e toward obser-vance
of rules and regulations.
Q What attitud e did he t ake "~.".'i th r ega rd to offenses und er
the disciplinary punishment law?
A He 1as very ~e ll versed in th e construction and jnterpreta-tion
of a ll rules and regula tions. He also resp ected the
-3897-
::r~~Jy 8 , 194-9
'i'OYODA-Y
opinion of those of us 1:11ho were, of coul..~ se, by profess ion
familiar with precedents and other legal knowledge. At
all times he paid minute attention to all phases in appli-cation
of laws, rules and regulations.
DEFE NSE : No further questions on direct examination.
CROSS-EXAEI NAT ION
Que stions by the prosecution (Mr. Deitch):
Q Can you tell this Tribunal v'7ha t the code of the samurai
is with regard to tr eat ment of pr isoners of war?
A The spirit of the code of samurai is that since prisoners
have become prisoners--that is, they are no longer enemy
combatants--they should be treated just as the regulations
concerning the treatment of prisoners of war provide and
stipulate .
Q According to t he code of the samurai, if a prisoner of
war wa s executed, would it make much difference as to
whether he was executed or kept a prisoner?
DEFENSE: I obj ect that these questions are immat erial.
The implication is that the code of the samurai is some le gal
code. This witness is put on a s a le gal officer to testify to
legal matters . As I understand it, the code of the samurai is
a code of ethics ; and I further object to this question that it
is very vague--vvould it make any difference to whom? to what?
I object to the question as entirely irrelevan~ , imma terial and
va gue.
PROSECUTION: This man, most likely, had as part of his
l ega l education the ba ckground of J apanese law and he most
likely stud ied the code of the samurai or knows its provisions
with re gard to prisoners of war.
DEFENSE: Of course, I object, Your Honor, to any implicatior
tha t the code of the samurai is anything more than a code of
ethics. It ha s no le gal standing and, I submit, no rela tionship
to this case.
LAVT :PTE~ 'I.BER: There has been some evidence in the record
conce~nin g the samura i code. The witness, whi le a legal officer,
ha s also been trained in Navy affa irs and he may ansvver the
question if he is familiar ·with the cod e of samurai.
DEFEN SE : Furthernor e, I don't think there has been any
evid ence that the code of the samut•ai has any provision with
r egard to prisoners of war.
PROSECUTION: Sir, whe ther the code has or has no t anything
to do with prisoners of war, t his is pr oper cross-examination.
PRESIDENT: The Law Pember icrill r ule.
PROSECUTION: The statements that ~Ir. Furness made should
have be en made in closing argument .
July 8, 1949
TOYODA-Y
PRESIDENT: The Law Hember will rule.
LAW ~llii·ffiER: The objection is overruled. The statement
I just made will be translated to the witness first before he
answers.
DEFENSE: I~!ay I have the question read?
(The last question was read by the reporter as follows:)
"Q According to the code of the samurai, if a prisoner of
war wa s executed, would it make much difference as to
·whether he was executed or kept a prisoner?"
DEFENSE: I submit, Your Honor, I don't know ~Nho he means.
"Would it make much difference" to whom?
PROSECUTION: It doesn't make any difference whether
Mr . Furness understands the question. It depends on whether the
witness understands the question.
DEFENSE: Well, I don't understand the que stion; I doubt
if the Court knows vvhat you mean when you say, "would it make
any difference?" and I don't think the defendant knows. I am
tired of being told it doesn't make any difference whether I
understand the question or not. I think it make s a great amount
of difference to me.
PROSECUTION: You have- been overrule~ once.
D.EFENSE : . I a sll: .for reconsideration cot1 that point. .
LAW I:1E1ilBER: Recons:ldera tion denied~ Translate the
ruling on the objection--the explanation prior to the ruling
on the .objection--to the witness before you translate the
question to him.
A You mean whethe r he was exeC'uted or whether he was not
execut ed?
Q That is right.
A I cannot quite understand the import or meaning of your
question. However, since you ar e asking about the spirit
o~ the code of samurai, my answer is that the spirit of
the code of samurai is that prisoners of war would be
treated just as any .Japanese would be treated.
Q According to the spirit of the code of the samurai, should
a Japanese either die in battle or kill himself before
being taken a prisoner of war?
A Are you talking about the case of Japanese?
Q· . I said "a Japanese."
A · Yes. In that case, ye s.
Q And if a Japanese vrer e taken as a pr isoner , he would be
consid er ed a ceward; is that correct?
A Yes.
- -3899-
I.'
I>
" T1' 1Y 8 , 1949
1~<: '.COYODA-Y
I
Q As a result of this cod e , all prisoners of war we r e.
looked do'vn upon a s being of a lower t ype of man than
the ord inary soldi er; is that correct?
DEFENSE: I obj ect. Hr . De itch so far has a sked questions
about Japane s e '"ho al"' e taken pl""isonel"'S of 117a x·. I obj ect unl e ss
he specifie s in his ques tion whether or not he means it to be
c onfined only to J apane se prisoners of 1"ar or prisoners of vm r
y.;ho ne re na tionals of countri e s a t vm r ··.rith Japan.
His que stions so far have r el ated to J apanes e who ~e re
t aken prisoners. I thiclc he is me rely tr ying t o confuse the
witness and l ead him into saying tha t the prisoners of nar
who ~'Je re na tionals of ene my countri e s vve re lt"\oked dorm upon.
PROSECUTION: I am t a l k ing about al l t :rpe s of pri soners of
nar. I~ . Furne s s can put hi s que stion on redire ct exRmination.
This is no~ cross-examina tion .
LAri HE~· ·'J3ER: The que stion is no t cl ear to me; it r1ay be
clea r to the witne ss. Objection overruled.
D::FENSE; Did you say th e qu e stion is no t cl ea r to you?
LAH J''lE~·:TI3ER: As to which typ e he means . You may bring
that out on r edir ect examination.
A Ye s, it is consider ed a disgr ace.
Q Wa s i nt ernat iona l l aw , so fa r as you knorJ, on warfare
based on the cod e of the samurai?
DEFENSE: Doe s that mean that int ernational l av', the l av;
of a ll na tions , l an between na tions--a ll those nati on s Tie nt
ba clr. and consid er ed 1.vhethet' they 1.v ould base it on the cod e of
the samurai; or wha t is the question?
Pil.OSECUTIOlJ: That is about 1,7hat I mea n. I thinlc the
que stion is clear.
DEFENS= : I obj ect to it.
PROSECUTIOl-J ~ ·will you read th e quest ion?
(The l a st que st ion ~as r ead by the r eporte r.)
PROSECUTION: I '.·rill r es t ate the question.
Q Wa s the i nt 0rnat ional l aw of ~a rfare based on the cod e of
the samur a i ?
Add to that : as observed by Japan.
A I believe tha t the t '·1o mee t on a common ground.
Q Wa s Adoiral Toyoda a samura i or a de sc endant of a f amily
of sa mura i ?
A Yes, he i s n samura i.
-3 900 -
I
J1:ly 8 , 1949
TOYODA-Y
A
Q
And in his application of th e rules of interna tional
'.varf are, 1vould he apply th e code of the samurai?
Is your question in regards to the enemy pr isoners of nar,
tha t is, prisoners of war ~aptured by Japan of enemy
personnel, or are you a sking me about r;hether Admiral
Toyoda ~:rould apply th e code of samurai vvh en he is captured
a s a prisoner of wa r by his enemy?
My que stj_on applie s to the rules of international warfare.
I didn 't say a thing concerning prisoners.
DEFENSE: I obj ect t o that, that he hasn't said a thing
as to prisoners of war . Ha lf of his ques tions were r el a ted to
that.
PROSECUTION: I am t al k ing about the question just put
to the ~ itn o ss. Wi ll you re ad the que stion back, Reporter ?
(The l a st question wa s read by the reporter.)
LA''! ri]El1BER : Objection overrul ed.
A Admiral Toyoda nould apply international l aw.
Q Did Japan agr ee to ab id e by the rules of international
v;arfa re and, if so, rvhen?
DEFENSE: I ob j ect unless some definition is given to
ag r eed to a bide by ~ ha t rules of internat iona l warfare . There
a r e c erta i n conventions y•hich J apan r 2tifi ed; th ere are c erta in
one s whic h she did not. This vague question about rules of
inte rna tional varfare is practically a s va gue a s th e questions
on the cod e of the samurai . The inte ntion is the sa me: to
confuse the wi tness, to l ead him into statements, and I obj ect
strenuously to it as a mos t unfa ir typ e of cross- examina tion.
PROSECUTION: Sir, t his man ha s be en qualified as the top
legal officer in th e J apane s e ~a vy.
DEFENSE: He has not.
PROS:::;CUTION: We ll, one of the top. I assumed by the
build-up tha t he was the tops. Let us say he wa s one of the
top l egal officers. As such he should knoTI the ansuer to my
que stion, ~nd if there are a ny qualifications to his answer
he should be a ble to give them. He should be in a position to
give this ansmer.
DEFE~'JSE : 1?hy not, the n, a sk 1Phe th er Japar1 agreed to
a bid e by such-a nd-such convention or another convention7 I
rememb er we nere aske d in the past wheth er J epa n ag re ed to
ab ide by the rules of l and ·parfare 1:vhich •:Jer·e issued ·by the
Ame rican Army ; now we ar e a sk ed t his vague typ e of ques tion.
Cc:ln ' t .-.e get a definite que stion r ega rding a definite r:1a tter?
LAVT 7· -IEI· ~BER: Objection sustained as to the form of the
question.
-3901-
Jul y 8 , 1949
TOYODA-Y
Q Did J apan ag r ee to abide by the Gen eva Convention rules
~ ith r ega rd to interna tional warfare ?
A I think J apan did.
Q Dd you think or do you know?
A That is th G way I think.
Q Then you actua lly don't know?
PROSECUTION: Let the record show the witne ss took t wenty
s econds befor e he answGred.
DEFENSE~ I ask tha t r emark be stricken.
LAW I lEJffiER ~ The r ecord rJ'ill shorT that th e I'd tne ss gave
considera tion to the question.
DEFENSE: If 1"'e are going to have those ma tters put in the
record we should get a tim0keeper rrho has a stop Y'la tch.
PROSECUTION: We do have a stop wa tch for tha t purpo s e
and I think it has a great deal to do nith his t e stimony on
the pos ition he wa s qualified to speak on a s one of the top
l ega l off ic ers in the Japanese Navy.
DEFENSE: We ll, then, v.re will hove to have someb ody to
check your sta t ements because since you start ed to talk t wenty
seconds have not yet gone by end the witnes s didn't tal-ce tha t
long.
Q Then you actua lly do not know; is tha t correct?
A No, I am not sayi ng tha t I d on't know. I am saying tha t
I think J apan has ag r eed to abid0 by it.
Q As the chi ef of the Legal Affairs Bur eau of the Navy
llinistry should you know this point, should t his point
be within your knorJl edge vri thout saying to t h is Tribunal,
"I think"?
DEFENSE: I obj ect to this question a s pur ely argumentative,
LAW tlE~.JBER: Obj ection overrul ed.
A I have al \7ays und erstood tha t int erna tiona l laws v1e r 8
na turally being appli ed.
Q Now, if Japan was following the rule s of international
warfare, wha t rul es of interna tional warfar e wer e they
f olloning--a s set forth by wha t conventions?
A Rules of l and, sea and aerial warf ar e .
Q What conventions?
A I cannot r ecall.
Q Did you ever know?
A Yes.
PRESI D:CNT: The Court will r ec e ss until 1500 hours.
At 1445 hours th o TribLmal recessed until 1500 hours.
-3902-
,,
I TOYODA-D
I p PROSECUTION (Mr. Deitch): Let ·th e record show the Tribunal
r e convened C~t 1500, ell personnel pr es ent prior to the recess
being pre sent aft er the rec ess.
i
I r emind the wit nes s thet he is still und er oath.
CROSS-EXAMI NATION (Continued)
Que stions by the pros ecution (Mr. Deitch):
Q Now, you said on dir ect examination that there was an
ord Gr issued by the Navy Ministry somet ime either in
Sept ember or October, 1944 7 which provided for th e punish-ment
of c ap tur ed enemy fliers; is that correct?
A Yes .
Q Was this document or ord er s ent ~to the commanders in chie·f
of th e fl ee ts?
A This was s ent from the Chief of the Legal Affairs Bureau
of th e Ne vy rHnistry to the offic ers of the Legal Aff airs
Department of all the fl ee ts mere ly as a r ef er enc e draft
plan.
Q Was the ori gi nal ord er s ent to the command ers in chief of
the fle e ts, and was a draft for r ef erenc e s ent by the
Chie f Lega l Officer of th e Navy Ministry t0 the l ega l
officers in the fle ets?
A That is not so.
Q Would th e Chief Lega l Offic er of the Navy Ministry have
to issue hi s ord ers in the name of the Navy Ministry,
or, rat he r, would a ll such ord ers leave from the Navy
Ministry in the name of the Na vy Ministry?
A This was mer ely sent as a plan or draft.
Q Would such plan or draft~ if it was adopted,have to be
is sued in the name of th e Navy Ministry -~ of the Navy
Minister?
A This plan or draft was s ent to all the fl ee ts as r eference
for them to decide on what they would issue, based on or
using such plan.
Q Wha t do y ou mean by that?
DEFEFSE (Mr. Furness): I submit that the ans wer is plain.
I G. on' t know wha t the pros e cutor me ans by asking, "What do you
mea n by thct?"
PROSECUTION: It doe s not matter whether you understand it
or not . I am asking t he witness wha t he means by that.
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Doe s that me an that the fle e ts could act as they pleased
with r egard to captur ed t:nemy fliers?
Yes .
Then, was t his an ord er from the Navy Ministry?
No, this was not an order of the Navy Ministry.
You s ay it wes a dr a ft of a propos ed order, is that correct~
-3903-
'
~' OYODA-D
A N~, this was not an ord er.
Q Was it a draft of a document which it was propos ed to
us e with r egard to prisoners of war?
A This provid ed for wartime major crimes.
Q We r e the fl e8 ts empowered to act upon a draft of such
e. document?
A That is correct.
Q We.s it the policy of the Japanese Navy to allow fle ets
to act on drafts rather than on the final form of a
document or ord er?
A Thet was not so. The r eason that this plan was drawn up
and was sent to the fle et for the fleet to use as a
r ef erenc e and standard was that at that time most of the
fl ee ts did not have any legal officer who was familiar wit t
the wartime major crimes, that is, in connection with
the e nemy aircraft personnel. That is why the Legal
Affa irs Bur eau of the Navy Ministry prepared a plan or
dr aft which was to be us ed as a standard for the fleets
to make their own decisi~n. This was an exceptional case.
Q Wh at did this document provide? What were the cont ents?
A I do not r ec8ll the exact cont ents, but my recolle ction
of t he cont £nts wa s that it provid ed for punishment of
t h os e enemy aircraft pe rsonnel who kill ed or i n jured non-combatants,
the.t is, those pe ople who we r e not combatants,
or t h os e who destroyed or da mag ed private property, that
is, non-military property, installations and faciliti e s,
and thos e who destroyed or da mag ed ordinary buildings,
t hp t is, und ef ended end unarmed buildings.
Q And what was the punishment provid ed for in this document?
A Death s entenc e c:nd imprisonme nt. Two kinds of punishment,
t ha t is, death and imprisonment.
Q ~ s authorized by this document, could a fli er who bombed
or machine-gunned a building whe r ,~ in no person was killed
or injur ed, be execut ed for such act?
A You mean when tha t attack wa s dir ected against ordinary
build ings?
Q Ye s.
A Ye s.
Q You n1e an to say the fli er could be executed becaus e he
dama ged a building, is that correct?
A Ye s. If attack ~ as solely for th e purpos e of da maging
ordinary buildings, then he can be punished in that way.
Q Would such punishment in such a cas e be in accord with
the rul es of int ernational warfare?
DEFENSE: I submit th'-'t the authorization which s et up
(~ v e r y court in which the Alli ed ? owers ar e trying case s both
he r e and i n Germany provid e s tha t the death penalty may be
i nfl i ct ed for any crime for which t he de f endants ar e tri ed,
and I submit th~t to a sk t his witnes s the. t question is to
-3904-
1:
I
I
I•
__C lCJD f. - D
qu est ion the e uthenticit y of the s e tribunals o.nd of the tribunal 2
in Ger many, and I submit that that is not a question tha t
should be aske d of t his witne ss.
PROSECUT IO N: Sir, th pt is not an obj e ction~ It is closing
ar gument . I s ugge st tha t if the def ens e couns 8l has no
ob j ection he should n ot rise and make a closing argume nt.
If the y have 2 closing st8tement, they should save it for clos-ing
2rgument.
DEFENSE : I make tha t as an obj ection.
PRESIDE NT : Very we ll, finish your stat ement, Mr. De itch.
PROSECU7ION : I h ~ve he ar d no obj e ction. My question is
e perf ectly pr op er one . I have laid the groundwork, and it
should b e answer ed by the witne ss.
PRESIDENT: The L2w Member will rul e .
Lt.vi' lG.EI''lBER : The obj e c t ion is overruled .
h Yes .
Q Now, will you kindly define e ma jor war crime?
t Do you mea n wa rtime crime s, the d efinition of war time
cr i mes ?
Q Yes , wco rtirne me1 jor wa r crime, as s et forth in the Rul e s
of I nt erna tiona l Warfar e .
A They are ects i n violation of rul e s of l and, nav al and
a eria l wa rfar e .
Q Cpn you be a lit t l e mor e el abor a t e in your definition?
t Ki l ling &nd des truc t ion of per sonnel and prop erty othe r
t ha n thos 0 provid ed in the above three rules of wa rf are.
Q There is evid ence b efor e this Tribunal that an ~ lli e d plene
a tt a cked the Destroyer KAmika ze . Sub seq u ently, the
personne l of this plane wer e execut ed , Would t he a t tack
on the Kami kaz e ha ve constitut ed a war crime?
A No, it does n ot.
Q Now, would any of your l ege l offic er s who wer e attached
to fl e E:- t s be consul t ed in th e dr aw ing of operat ional
orders or would they a t all times be shown op er a tional
orde r s ?
t, No, the y would not be consult ed , nor would the y b e shown
any oper a tional ord ers, The y have neither such authori-zation
nor such function.
Q Vlht:n P. commanding offic er of 2 fl ee t j_s in the proc e ss of
dr aw ing pn ope r Ptional ord er , would he submit such opera-t
i onal ord er to the l ega l officer so th a t th e l ega l
off ic er could advis e him wher e in th2t oper a tional ord er
disob eye d the Rule s of I nt ernationa l Warfare?
A No , no such pr a ctic e t Pkes pla ce .
Q In vi ew of the answer you hav e just given, c an you t ell
-3 905-
I
II
,,
I' TOYOD A-D
I
t his Tribunal why your l e gal offic er sh ould have s een an
order from the Sixth Flee t or any s ubordinat e unit which
provid ed for the annihilation of the cr ews of sunken e nemy
ve s se ls?
DEFENSE : Your Honor, th8t assumes f ects of which ther e
is not 8 tr ace of evidenc e . Ne ither thi s witnes s nor 8ny othe r
witnes s ha s t e stifie d the t any l egal officer s aw any ord ers of
an op er at ionr l netur e , t hc t they were submit te d to him. The r e
i s not one tr ece , one scintilla of evid enc e in this cas e that
he did , or tha t t he corrun anding offic er had any duty to s how it
to him or t ha t he hPd any duti e s r•hich involved his l ooking
a t them , and I submit t ha t assuming such f acts a s be ing in
evi denc e is obj ectionable , ~ nd I ther efor e obj e ct to it.
PROSECUTIO N: On dire ct examina tion ~Jr. Furness covered
t his very point. I am mer e l y cros s - examining a t t his ti me .
I s ubmit th Pt I am entitled to cross-exami ne on ma tt er broug ht
out by t he de f ense on dir ec t examina tion ,
DEFENSE: Of c our se , you ar e . Bu t you ar e not entitled
to s ay t ha t I eli ci t ed any evid enc e or tha t t his witne ss t e s t i-fi
ed or t ha t any witnes s t estifi ed th at oper ational ord ers wer e
s hown to any l egp l offic er. If you ar e going to i n sist on
t his quest ion, I am go ing to insist tha t t he r ecord be r ead
ba ck of t his witnE ss' t e stimony on it,
PROSECUT ION: Sir, I t hi nk I can cle ar t he whol e s itue tior
up . ThE:· vvi tness --r athe r, Hr. Fur ne ss -- t estified, i n t he
w ~y of a l eeding q~es tio n , t o t he effe ct th at no l egal officer
who was the sub or di na t e of t his vvitne ss s avv eny order or knew
of any order or hea r d of any ord er which provid ed f or t he
anni hila tion of t he cr evJ s of s unke n ve s se ls. Now, I boli eve
t ho t was the t e s timony , and my cro ss - expmination i s on tha t
v er y point.
DEV£NSE: I think it is r a t he r s tr ang e t ha t couns el,
who i nvites me to psk l ead i ng ques tions to s av2 tine -- i n
f pct, tri es t o ins i st on it , end as ks t ha t I r ead a stateoent --
now s ays t hP t I am t estify ing or tha t I have t es tified .
I submit tha t that was not th e t es timony which I elicited
fro m this witne ss and thet couns el's que stion which is put
doe s not ev en foll ow wha t he s eys was t he t esti mony .
PROSECUT I ON : I have l ai d t he found a tion for this qu es tion.
DEFENSE : Could t he question be r ead back?
Lf.W l\.!!El1BLR : The obj e ction is ov erruled . The Tribunal
will disr egard the r emark of couns el for the pros ecut ion with
r ef er ence to t he def ens e couns el's t es tifying.
DEF2NSE : I should like the questi on r ea d back . Pt;rhaps:
I W8 S wr ong i n t aking offens e a t couns el's r ema r ks.
(T he l as t quest ion wes r ead by the r eport er.)
DEFENSE: I s ubmit t ha t t he wi t ness ne ver testifie d th at
' ' -3906-
TOYODt.-D
his le ga l offic er should hPve s ee n it. He testifi ed he never
her·rd of such e policy; t het it WP S 1ever r E:porte d to him.
'I'hi s witness hps neve r t est ifi ed the; hi s l e gc.l officer should
he v e s ee n it if it existed.
L l~W riJENrBER: The ob jection hes t e en o\·erruled.
PROSECUTION : I think we ought t) r e fr ~ sh the witnes s'
r e colle ction now . The qu es tio n he s t( 1 d o w:·_th t he pr evious
answ Gr. He mey not he v e it in mind,
(The l es t quest ion wes ege in r eP d by th~ r ep or t e r.)
DEFLNSE : I Pill going to ask for r ';l consiC: era tion on the
gr ounds tb nt th£ que stion is pnother t~~ick qu :; stion: "Why
should he he. v s s e£n such en ord er ? 11 Ti 1e order, vve submit, did
not ex ist, and to e sk him why he shoul'. h r.~v£ ~ een it -- t hen
he c e:n ans'liJer "I don't know" or "He s hc;>Uldn't "le v e s ee n i t" --
ass umes t het such .?n or d£r exists. I submit to t he Court thc:: t
the questi on is mos t unf e ir, end I e.sk .ror r e ccnsid er ~ tion.
PHOSECUT I ON : Sir, t he dir e ct exem: ,nBtion V>?S most unf e. ir.
Mr . Furnes s st ood UP the r e c:md .ssked t h ~ . s men questions which
th e rr:B n answer ed by- "I d on't know," "I c on 1 t kno' v," "No."
Ev erything WPS P n ega tiv e answer. It w~ s outsidE· his knowled ge,
But t he t e stimony went into the r e c or d; the Tr ib~n e l got the
innuend o fro m the quest ion. That is why I heve to cross- examine
on th1.s.
L~W J 1E~:'iBI.R : The obj s ction is sust r j nPd on thos e grounds.
The pros e cution is entitl ed to bring out ~ow , if su ch an order
exist ed , the l ege l office r co uld heve s c~ n it.
D!iiFENSB: Yes , b ut he is ask ing why i"J.e did n't s se it,
end it t1ss urne s thf~t such a n ord er is in eJ;istence.
PROSECUTION: Si1, I should like to r~ve the l as t thr £e
or four que stions and answe rs r ead b a ck, a~d t hen I think the
Trib unel will ge t the wh ol e point.
DEFE NSL: I will se.y t h is, t he. t I shotJ.ld ne v e r ask l se.ding
qu estions on o. ir e ct ex<1mina tion, whethe r I am invit ed by this
couns el or not. It puts ~e in a positi on ~ hich is v ery
emb a rr assing .
PROSECUTI ON : This has nothing to do w ~th whether it is a
l ead ing question or not, It was brought out on the direct
exerni na ti on; the t is t he sole point.
I shculd like to finish with this wit n ess, if possible,
by f our o' clo ck . \N ill you r eed the last ttree or four que stions
and c nswe rs?
(The r e cord wa s r ead by the court r e pc~t er as requested.)
DEFENSE : Tha t last question, " ••• why your le ga l officer
should ha v e s een an ord er for annihilating the cr ew s of enemy
ships , 11 ass ume s tha. t such an ord er is in e:~:: ist en c e, t he t t h is
witne ss knovvs about i t , ~md r.s k s why his l eg 81 of fic e r should
-3907-
TOYOD/~-D
not h~ve se en it. I think it is e: most unfair qu estion, and
would be unf air in any court in the world.
PROSECUTION: Sir, I should like to havs the entire natter
r ead -- the ergument of counsel~ lfy answer teke s cer e of all
his obj ections. Th~t is why I want it r ead .
(The r ecord vve s r ead by th e court r eporter as requested.)
LAvV ~:JE~ffiER : Recons idere tion is given. The pr evicu s
ruling is withdrawn. The obj ection is sustained as to the form
of t he question, in line with my previous ruling. In other
words , the prosecution may inquire how the legal officer could
have se en thos e ord ers~ if they existed.
Do you have any question in mind, Mr. Deitch?
PROSECUT ION: Nothing, sir, excep t that Mr. Furness wa s
overruled t wice; he kept pressing his objection, and now he
has been sust ained . I have s everal points that I heve not men-ti~
ned to show why this question is perfectly proper, but I
shall go on to something els e .
Q Was ther e any r egul ation in effect which allowed the Navy
to try Army personnel, or vic e versa?
A On the Navy side, ther e w~ s th e Navy Court-martial Law;
and the nrmy had a corre s ponding Military Court-martial
Law which provided that.
Q Tell me what the Ne.vy 1 s regulation provided.
I will withdraw the question.
Q ll.s l egal offic er of the Combined Fle et, you had legel
offic ers und er your command who were attached to the Second,
Third, Fourth and Sixth Fleets, is that correct?
?~ Yes.
Q Were you und er the Com~ander in Chi ef of the Combined
Fleet?
f" Yes.
Q Did you t ~ke ord ers fro m him?
A Yes ,
Q Did you advise him on l ega l ma tt ers?
f. Yes.
Q ·Nere t he se l egel offic ers who were under your command and
wh o were attached to the Second, Third , Fourth and Sixth
Fleets as leg r. l officers, also und er the command of Toyoda?
DEFENSE: WhC~t are the numbers -- Seconc , Third end Fourth,
or First, Second end Third!
PROSECUTION: I di d not s ey the First. I said Second,
"l'hirc. , Fourth end Six t h.
t No; they were under the co mmenders in chi ef of the
-3908- ,.
,,
l r
I
,,.
TOYODA-D
Q
A
court s - martial to whi ch t hey we r e ass igned .
You me en to say that you were subordinate t~ Toyoda and
he was your co ~~ endi ng officer, and your subordinat es, in
turn, we r e not under the co~1 and of Toyoda? Is thet wha t
you er e tr ying to i nd ic at e to t his Tribunal?
Yes , that i s what I am indic at ing.
Q Now, could orders be issued by Toyoda to you with r e gerd
to l ege l ma tters of t he Combined Fl ee t?
A Yes .
Q t:,nd we r e the proper channels of r ep orts to you, as legel
offic er of the Combined Flee t, through the Command er in
Chiof of t he Combined Flee t fro m you?
DEFE NSE: Wha t is the question -- to you, fro m you, or
wha t? I C. on' t know what i t mea ns.
PROSECUT I ON : Then l e t th e witne ss t es tify.
DEFENSE: I do not t hink it c an be tr ans lat ed , The
tr ansl8tor has to underst and what it mea ns. I don't. Doe s
t he Court und erst .s nd it?
PROSECUTION : Sir, it s eems to me t hat I have been un ~ uly
haras sed in my cro ss- examinat ion by numerous obj e ctions which
obviously wer e meant to de l ay t he proceed ings and e, lso to give
the wit nes s possibly mor e time, or to cover the matter so
t he t t he Tr i bunal could not follow the groundwork l a i d for
my ques tions.
I submi t tha t if t he questi on is not cle ar to the wit ne ss,
th e witness c an so state.
DEFENSE: Objections ha ve been made bec ause it was felt
by counsel that the qu es tions were obj ecti onable . That is the
only r ea son.
I submit t h~ t I do not und erst and tha t lest question; I
c. on ' t think the Court does, cmd I don't think the int erpr e t er
does .
Lt-W NIEMBER: The obj ection is overrule d . The witness may
answer t he question if he underst pnd s it .
I NTERPRETER : (To r epo1·ter) Ma y I he ve the question pgc:Jin ;
will you r eed it?
(The question was r ead by the r eporter.)
PHOSECUTI ON : You have bee n overruled , Mr, Furness. If
t he v: itne ss doe s not und erst <md it, l e t hir.J. so stet e .
I NTERPRETER: Cen I consult vvi th :rtr .. Deitch?
PRI.SIDENT : Do you underst and the question?
I NTI;RPRETER : I have a vcgue id ea of whe t it is.
-3909-
I·
I ~
I'
I
1 CYODt. -D
PRESIDEI'JT: t.r e you sure?
I FTERPRETER : No, I am not sure. ~.~ay I consult with him?
PROSECUTIO N: To s~v e time , I sha ll r est2t e th e qu estion,
Q t.,nc. wer e the proper channels of r eports from your sub-ord
ina.t es, from you to the Commander in Chief of the
Combined Fle e t and thro ugh the Commender in Chief of the
Combined Fleet?
DEFENSE : I will make no further ar gument, but I say I
sti ll Co not understc.nd it cmd obj e ct.
PROSECUTION: t~ll right. I shall r es t e,te the question
once more,
Q Were r eports fro m your subordinat e s suppos e~ to come to
the knowledge of the Commander i n Chief of the Combined
Fleet through you?
A Yes . I beli eve you are talking ab our criminal 2cts and
punishments conne ct ed with such criminel a cts. That wa s
my ass i gned duty.
Q Were t hesE~ l eg el officers wh o wer e atteched to th e v crious
fleets e part of the Combined Fleet Headquarters and
assigned to th e v Prious fl eets by you?
Th~t WeS not so. The Second , Third, and the Sixth Fle ets
in this ca se ea ch had officers of the Judici ary Corps,
Leg al Cor ps , attached to it.
PROSEC1.JTION: Thet wps in my question. Will you r epea t
my quest ion, Reporter?
(The l ast question wes r ead by the r eport er.)
Q Your cmswer wc-s in my question. You hr.ve not given me e.
full answer to my question.
DEFLNSE: I submit he ha s. His answer is no.
PROSSCUT ION: On ei r ect examina tion, ma y it please the
Tribunal, the witness t es tified the t he C~Ssigned thes e l e gal
officers t o thes e various fl ee ts. Now, I have asked this
question: We r e they assigned by you, 2nd were they attached
to t hese fl ee ts?
The witness hr s answer ed one part of the question. He say
they were att ached t o t hese fle ets, But he has not answered
t he por t ion of t he qu es tion which was t o the eff e ct t he t they
we r e ess igned by him to the se fl ee ts.
DEFENSE: If the Court pleas e , the witness did not at any
time on dir ect or cr~ ss-exem ination t es tify that he essign~d
these offic ers to the constituent fl ee ts. Ther e is not one
trPce of evidence i n his t es timony that he se.id he did.
PROSECUTI ON : All right; I will ask tha t ques tion.
-3910-
1:
~~.'OYO D L -D
Q Die you ass i gn t he s e l egal offic ers who wer e your sub-orei
na t e s t o t he va ri ous flee ts?
No , t he t was no t so. The Per s onne l Bur ea u of t he Nevy
Mi ni s t ry mad€ t he a s s i gnment,
Q To whe t headq uart ers wa s t he l egal officer who wa s a tt achec
t o the Fourt h an0 Six th Flee ts a s l egal offic er a ssigne d?
A He WP S a ssigned t o t he Fourth Flee t Headquart ers. His
mai n pos t was t he Four t h Flee t Headquart ers. His con-curr
ent or add iti onal post wa s the Sixth Flee t Head -
quart er s.
Q Did you t estify on direct exemina tior1 that when legBl
oa tt er s would come up, you would c ir ect the l e gal officers
who wer e e.s si gned to mor e then one fl ee t to go t o t ha t
f l ee t and handl e such l egal matters?
A Ye s. 11y concurr ent post We s s eni or judiciary off icer of
the c ourt~ ma rti a l of the Sixth Flee t, and I r e ceived
r oport s f rom my juni or juc iciary offic er in colli1ecti on
wi t h l ega l ma tt er s pert c:: ining t o t he Six th Flee t.
Q Do yc u r1ean t o s ay , wr:s your an swer HYe s 11 t o my l a st
ques ti on?
I withdr aw the qu esti on.
Q Who woul d det er mine whe n the occ as i on dema nded tha t t he
legal of f icer shoulc vis it the fl ee ts?
A The Navy Minist er r e ce ive s r equ est or informa ti on fro m
ell t he fl ee ts c oncer ning t he situa ti on and need of the
fl eets, an0 up on s uc h informa ti on or r equest, t he Na vy
Mi nister de cides on t he l egal offic er t o be s ent or
att Pched t o fl ee ts.
PRE SID Et~ : The Tribuna l has an announc ement.
~ ft e r c ue con sider at i on of the f ect ors i nvolved , the
Tr ibuna l hes f ound i t ne ce ss ar y t o incr ease the hours of sitting
of t his Court. I n t he fut ur e , t his Court will c o~~ e nc e its
da ily s ess i ons at 0 900 hours and t er mina t e t hem at 1630 hours.
Quarter-hour r eces s es will be t aken a t 1030 and 1500 hours ,
with , of cour se , t he usuel luncheon r ec ess at 1200 hour s .
The Court will now c ontinue in tr ansla tion s essi on until
1 630 hours toda y, and it will r e sume the exami na ti on of this
witnes s at 0 900 hour s next Monday morning,
The Tribuna l will now withdr aw .
(t, t 1600 hours, E\D 2 r'~ j o ur nme nt wa s t ::>ken until Mondey ,
11 J ul y 1 94 9 , at 0900 hours.)
-3 911-
July 11, 1949
TOYODA-Y
War Crimes Tribunal Courthouse
Tokyo, Honshu, Japan
Monday, 11 July 1949
The Tribunal met, pursuant to adjournment, at 0900 hours.
BAILIFF: The War Crimes Tribunal is now in session.
PiWSECUTION (Mr. Deitch): Let the record show the Tribunal
reconvened at 0900 hours, 11 July 1949, all members of the
Tribunal bei::1g present, Mr. Deitch for the prosecution,
I.ffr. Blakeney, I.Jr. Furness, Japanese defense counsel for the
defense ~ the accused, the interpreters and the reporter.
Kikuo YUFU, a witness for the defense, having been previously
sworn, r e sumed the stand and testified through interpreters as
f ollows:
PROSECUTION: I remind the witness he is still under oath.
Your witness.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Que st ions by the defense (Mr. Furness):
Q You testified that the judiciary officers of the Second,
Third and Sixth Fleets were your subordinates. Were
they subordinates as the judiciary officer of the court-ma
rti al of the Combined Fleet or judiciary of fi cer of the
Second, Third and Sixth Fleets?
A They ~ ere not subordinates of mine as judiciary officer
for the court-martial of the Combined Fleet. I was the
senior judiciary officer of the Second, Third and Sixth
Fleets court-martial and they were subordinates of mine
in that capacity.
Q And any legal matters tha t arose ~rd th respect to the
First , Second , Third and Sixth Fleets, would you take
these matters up with the commander in chi ef of the
Combined Fleet or the commanders in chief of these
respective fleets?
A I did not and do not report legal matters to the commander
in chief of the Combined Fleet. Legal matters within the
First, Second, Third and Sixth Fleets are re ported to the
r e spective commanders in chief of such fl ee ts.
Q Then is it correct that only matters relating to personnel
and units directly under the cow.aand of the Combined Fleet,
and not under the command of any constituent fleets, be
taken up with the commander in chief of the Combined Fleet?
PROSECUTION: Sir, I see no reason for this question.
It has been covered on direct examination; it has been covered
on cross-examination. We have had the answer from the witness
on both direct and cross, and we will get the same answer now
on redirect. The first three questions were answered on direct
and cross ; I didn't object to those. This is the fourth question
that ~.r i l l c a 11 for the same answer. I ask that Mr. Furness go
on to something new or something whe~e there is some doubt in
-3912-
,,
July 11, 1949
TOYODA-Y
his mind;that might be proper r edir e ct examination, but we
r eceived the same answer to this que stion on dir ect and cross;
th er e is no reason to go i nto the same matter on redir ect.
DEFENSE : If th e Court please, I wish to cl ear up certain
ma tt ers from wh ich an implication might be drawn from the
quest ions on cross- examination. I submit that I have a right
to do so and that is all I am doing. I submit it is well wit hin
the li mits of th e ma tters rais ed on cross-examina tion. I don't
think there wa s any direct answer to this on either di rect or
cross-examina tion.
PRO SECUTION: Ther e is nothing to be cleared up. We
received the answer on direct and on cross-examination, and
we will ge t the same answer on redirect. It is just a wa ste
of time and I ask that the re cord be checked so tha t Mr. Furne ss
will not go i n to other matter which has be en covered on direct
and cross so that we can finish with t h is witne ss quickly. I
doubt if I'rr. Furness can think of an y other que stions if the
Tr ibunal rul e s that this ma tter has b een covered on direct
and c r oss-examina tion.
LAW ~lEMBER: Obj ection overrul e·d.
A That is correct. This matter is cl early stipulated and
pr ovided in th e naval courts-martial law.
Q Could you t ell us whether or not at any time your of fic e
was in the same place or on the same shi p vhich vm s us ed
by Admiral Toyoda as his offic e or headquart er s during the
time tha t you were judicial off'ic er for the court-martial
of the Combined Fleet?
A No, ther e we re no oc ca sions.
Q Where wer e the r e sp ective offic e s ?
PROSECUTION: I am ob j ecting because this has be en
t e stifi ed to b efor e . It was on the battleship Yamato; it wa s
never on t he ~fu sashi. Doe s th e Court want to hear it again?
DEFENSE ~ It has not been t e stified to. Admiral Toyoda's
headquarters were at time s at Hiyoshi, at time s on the battle-shi
p Oyodo. I don't know about the battleshi p Yamato at a ll.
I am asking this quest ion and I thi nk I have the right to.
The re is not a single stat ement by this witne ss in his t e stimony
as to wh e th er his offic e wa s at the same place or not.
PROSECUTION: All right, I will r ead the t e stimony.
DEFENSE : These obj ections ar e trivial 9 and I have a
right to bring it out on r edir ect. Mr. De itch would like to
cut off all evid enc e of th e def ens e .
PROSECUTION: They are not trivrial. This witness has
been on t h e stand for t wo days. Th e def ense insists on putting
him on dir ect examina tion by question and answer and the
matt er has been covered. There is n o r ea son to go into it
time and t ime aga in. I ·will find it for the Tribunal.
DEFE I~SE : All ri ght, f ind it then, unl e ss the Court
-3913-
July 11, 1 949
TOYODA-Y
wa nts to rul e before he delays the proceedings of this trial
further. He t es tifi ed that his headquart ers were on the
}~ sashi ; he never t e stified that Admiral Toyoda's headquart ers
,,~,e re not thE're. I submit that all the se state men ts about how the
def ens e should conduct its case are out of place by counsel
of the opposing side. We conduct our case the way 1Ve think j t
should be conducted and not the way the prosecution thinks or
anyone els e .
PROSECUTIOi\J : The prosecution would like to finish the
case some time this year.
PRESIDENT: Let us stop the se arguments. Produc e the
statement that you said you we re going to, Hr . Deitch, and
the Law Fer1.ber will then rule.
PROSECUTION: I will, sir. On page 3873 , th e ~itness
t e stified: "The h eadquarters of the Combined Fleet was on the
battleship n~ sashi. However, I wa s order ed to report on board
t he Yamato." The first answer on page 3873.
DEFENSE: And that , you submit, is t estimony as to where
the headquart ers of the Combined Fl ee t was throughout the
period of this man's service with the Combined Fleet, and that
wa s wh er e Admiral Toyoda's headquarters wer e throughout the
t erm of his service; is tha t your submission?
PHOSECUTION: I have addressed my remarlcs to the Tribunal.
I would like the Tribunal to look at that portion.
LA1N HEJiffiER : There appears to be some doubt in the record
a s to the location of the headquarters during the entire
per iod ; obj ection overruled.
A In June of 1944 after th e Saipan operation wa s over
I returned to the J apane se homeland. At that time I vra s
on board the warship Haguro. Then I think it wa s in
the l att er part of June that I transferred from th e
·warship Haguro to the warship Musashi. At that time the
flagship of the Combined Fleet wa s the warshi p Oyodo.
Ther efore, Admiral Toyoda wa s on board the wa rship Oyodo
v1hi l e I was on board the war ship r.~rusashi.
Q Anything furth er?
PHOSECUTIOJ'J: May I ask the Tribunal a lso to check the
question and ans·wer on the bottom of page 3874 ~.'Then they have
the opportunity, t he last que stion and answer.
PRESIDENT: Let the witness answer , l~r. Deitch, and
the n you may mak e your statement.
A As I t e stifi ed the day before yesterday 5 I participated
i n the Leyte Bay ba ttle on board the warship lfusashi.
Howev er, the Husashi was sunk in that op eration. Then
i n the latt er part of October 1944 aft er the J:.!:usashi
v1a s sunk I wa s plac ed on board the warship Naga ta and
in the end of November of the same year I r e turned to
the Japanese homeland . Thus I never s erved on board the
same ship or a t the same place a s Admiral Toyoda.
-3 914-
~~uly 11 , 1949
TOYODA-Y
Q How many t :Lme s did you conf er with Admiral Toyoda whil e
you were judiciary officer of the court-ma rtial of the
Combined Fl ee t ?
PROSECUTION: This doe s not in any way a ri se out of the
cross-exami na tion.
DEFENSE: It does. He said it wa s his duty to t ak e up
l egal ma tt ers with th e Command er in Chief of the Combi ned
Fl ee t. I v,rant t o show ho v,~ ma ny time s he found it necess ary
to and I submit tha t I have the right to. If every question
is going to be objected to and argued about, it d elays these
proc eeding s far mor e than if the s e futil e obj ections were not
mad e .
LAW ]t1E1,:'fBER : Obj ection overruled.
PRESIDENT~ Mr . De itch~ I do not ha ve that pag e number
tha t you gave us .
PROSECUTION: I r ef er the Tr ibuna l to page 3874 , th e
l a st que stion and a nswe r on tha t pag e, to pa ge 3876, the l a st
que stion and answer on tha t pag e.
A Just onc e . As I t e st i f ied a little ''lhile ago, in June
of 1944 I changed my offic e from th e warship Haguro t o
t he warship Jlc~us a shi. Admiral Toyoda had just th en a ssumed
hi s new pos t a s t he Commander in Chi ef of the Comb i ned
Fl eet , and I we nt t o ca ll on Admira l Toyoda on board the
warship Oyodo to pay my r e sp ects to him. Tha t wa s the
only oc ca sion tha t I sp oke with hi m.
Q You t e sti f i ed t ha t t he offic er who wa s t he judicia ry
of fic er for th e 6th Flee t , tha t his princip al post wa s
the j udici ary offic er for the 4th Fl eet and tha t he
held c oncurrently the post of judiciary offic er of the
6th Fleet. Would he , in the norma l cour se· of busine ss,
and did he submit to you a t a ny time any rep orts of
ma t ter s ar is i ng i n t he 4th Fl ee t?
PROSECUTION: Obj ection. The ma tt er ha s b een covered.
Ther e is a littl e misstat ement i n th e que stion a s to the f a cts
a s to ~ha t t he witne ss t e stifi ed to , but I am not going i nto
t ha t. I am saying the ma tt er ha s b een cover ed ; we have rec e ived
t he answer ; ther e is no need t o go into it aga in.
DEFENSE : I submit if ther e is a misstat ement it is the
duty of couns el to c all att ention to it r a ther than mer ely
sta t e th er e is such a mistake. It s eems to me it is a duty
to the Court.
P:ROSECUTIO N: I point out that the ma tt er ha s been
an swer ed . If I am overrul ed I will sta t e it.
LAVJ ~.PEI!ffiE R: During the pros ecution's ca se, ther e were
many instanc e s of re petitious ma tter •:vhich wer e brought before
t hi s Tr i buna l. At the risk of a few r epe titious ma tt ers be ing
b rought in dur i ng the d ef ens e 's ca se , the obj ec tion is overrul ed.
PRO SECUTION: Sir, the re petitious ma tter tha t wa s brought
-391)-
~ y ll ~ 1949
'j_vy·0 DA -·Y
up during the prosecution's case wa s from differ ent witne sse s
1.'rho sustc:tined the ma tt er brought out by other witnesse s. The
repetitious ma tt er in this insta nce is from the ~ itness himself.
That is why I am obj ecting .
LA\.7 NE11TBER: I refer the pl'osecu tion to sever al of the
exhibits whi ch consisted of, a s I r emsmber on one occasion,
thr ee affid avits from the same witness.
PROSECUTION: Sir, each one of thos e affidavits contained
new rna tter and they v1ere r ead into the r ecord and took maybe a
he lf an hour to r ea l all thre e affidavits. The point I am arguing
is , t his very same witness ha s given the v ery same t e stimony l a st
Frid ay. There is no need to hear it t wic e .
DEFENSE: I don't think he ha s, sir.
I think the ruling so far is that you are overruled. Do
you uant to point out the misstatement?
PiiOSECUTION: ~1ay I have the qu e stion r ea d back?
(The l a st question was r ead by the repor t er.)
PROSECUTION: I submit that ha s been ansvrered.
DEFENSE: Yvhat is the misstatement?
PROSECUTION : I haven't be en overrul ed .
LAW PEMBER: You 1:vere ov e r.t-~ed on the other objection.
PROSECUT ION: Wel l, Mr. Furness stat ed tha t the ~ itn e ss
sta t ed that the principa l post wa s th e 4th Fl eet. The wi tne ss
t es tifi ed tha t the l egal officer was as signed to th e 4th Fl ee t
but he held concurrently the positions of l ega l offic er to
both the 4th and 5th Fl eets. - He did not t e stify that it wa s
the pr inci pal post. He t e stified that he wa s ass igned to the
4th Fle et.
DEFENSE: I think I can find the stat ement. Page 3874:
11 Q Now , I und er st and, further, that the lieut enant who nas
on duty a s j udicia ry offic er of the c ourt-martial of the Sixth
Fl ee t a lso serv ed concurrently a s judiciary officer of the court-ma
rtial of the Fourth Fl eet since this fl ee t was at anchor a t
Truk ther e f or a considerable period of time? A. The judiciary
offic er of the court-ma rtial of the Fourth Fleet held the con-current
post of the judiciary offic er for the Sixth Fleet. It
is the other rray around."
rfuy th e witness answer?
PROSZCUTIO N: It is just a s I have contended.
PRESIDENT: All right, the Tribunal can consider 1;.rhich is
right aft er wards.
DEFENSE: I withdrav; tha t que stion and a sk t his question :
-3916-
:-:·_}_J 11~ 1 949
TOYODA-Y
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Wa s the pr incipa l post of the judiciary officer for the
6th Fl ee t judicia ry offic er for the 4th fl eet?
Ye s.
And would he and did he, in the normal course of business,
submit to you r eports on matt ers arising in the 4th Fl ee t?
I did not hold the concurrent post of the senior judiciary
off ic er f or t he courts-ma rti a l of the 4th Fl eet. Therefore
I had no r el a tionship or connection wha tso ever with the
4th Fl eet. Con sequ ently the judiciary officer of the 4th
Fl e et would not and did not make any r eports co nc er ning
matt er s within 4th Flee t to me .
You t es tified on dir ect examina tion, in answer to a le ad ing
ques tion fr om me a s I na s examining in tha t manner by r equ e st
of the pros ecution, tha t a temp orary court-martial was se t
up i n the 29th Special Na va l Base Forc e a t Halmahera, the
commanding off icer of tha t Specia l Ba se Forc e holding th e
rank of captaino Could you t e ll us wheth er or not tha t
t emp ora ry cour t-martia l wa s set up in a ba s e f orc e or in
a gua rd unit ?
PROSECU'riON~ I didn't even touch tha t--
PRESIDENT: The ma tter of saving time is not al l-paramount .
The pr incipal ma tt er is to cont inue this cas e so that j ustice
is served but that we have rea sonabl e expedition in doing so.
P ROSECUTION ~ Sir, the prosecution never touch ed this on
cro s s-exa mina tion. Ther e is no r ea son to bring it up on
red i r ect. Further more, th e t e stimony wa s tha t it wa s set up
a t t he 29 th Specia l Ba se Forc e on direct examina tion. If the
man now say s it was set up for o guard unit, th en Hr. Furne ss
is impeaching his own ~ itn es s. In any event, the pros ecution
cc:tnnot s e0 the re l evancy of the t es timony , of the mat eriality o
I would like to understa nd h o ~ the defens e int ends to tie this
wi t ness ' t e stimony in nith th e entire case.
DEFENSE: If the Court pl ea se , Mr. Deitch is quit e right
that he did not cross- examine on thiso However, on going over
my not e s I find tha t t he re is a misstatement on the part of th e
wi tne ss Y'hich I am. sure was inadvert ent and I think tha t I have
a r~ g ht to clear it up . There is t estimony r egarding a court-martia
l a t Ha l mahe ra ~ tha t t es timony b eing the testimony of the
witne s s named Koba yashi. Tha t is 1Nhy this is be ing brought out.
LAIAJ t:rEEBER: What i s th e materia lity ; wha t diff erence
d oe s it make?
DEFENSE: I think the witness Kobaya shi t e stified to the
setting up of a t emp orary court-martial in a guard unit and not
i n a ba se forc e . I want to cl ea r up the inconsistency.
PROSECUTION: Does Mr . Furne s s intend to show that
Kobaya shi made th e misst a t ement or t his witnes s made th e mis-s
t atement ? If t his ~ itn es s did not make the misstat ement we
a lr eady have it in evid enc e.
-3917-
DEFENSE: You won't find tha t out, Mr. Deitch, until
the witness has answer ed the question.
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
LAW MEI.11J3ER: The objection is overruled.
It was not the 29th Naval Special Base Force. It was the
29th Guard Unit. The tempor ary court-martial was establish·
in the 29th Guard Unit.
Do you know of any other such case?
No.
You testified regarding something which vm s called the
"code of the samurai." Do you know of any such thing
as a samurai code in the s ense of a code of laws, r egula-tions,
rules, and so forth, numbered 1, 2, 3, etc.?
Prior to the Meiji Era I have heard that various feudal
lords in their own domain had more or less stipulated
their own code s of samurai.
Is it a code of ethics or a way of life or a code of law?
I think it is ethics.
Could you tell us what it taught with regard to a
defea ted enemy who had fall en into the hands of a captor?
There is an old J apanese saying, which goes to the effect
tha t the hunter refrains from killing a bird which has
flown into his hand seeking refuge--that is, a bird which
out of desperation and helplessness ha s flown into his
hands. This saying signifies the code of samurai; that
is, the bird in this case is applicable to the enemy;
and when such bird has come into the hands of the hunter
he will not k ill such bird but will be kind and will
assist such bird. That is the code of the samurai in
so f ar a s a captured enemy is conc erned.
You testified as follows: "Q As a r esult of this code,"
that is, this so-called samurai code, "all prisoners of
wa r were looked down upon a s being of a lower type of
man than the ordinary soldier; is that correct?" You
ansvvered: "Yes , it is considered a disgrace." Pag e 3900,
if the Court please.
Did you, by that answer, mean to refer to Japanese who
had been taken prisoners of war or to all prisoners of
war including prisoners of war from Allied armies?
It goes ~ ithout saying that this refers only to the
Japane se personnel who have been captured and become
prisoners.
Do you know vvhether or not Allied soldiers and sailors
who were captured by the Japanese were considered disgraced?
Tha t is not so. The Allied prisoners were,as I just
illustrated by the old Japanese saying, considered as
the birds in that saying.
Did you ever hear of Admiral Toyoda 1 s advocating ~altreat­ment
or execution of prisoners of war or the annihilation
of crews of Allied ships which had been sunk or crews
which had been captured?
-3918-
'"' ,:_ j_y ll' 1949
TOYODA-Y
PT\OSECUTION: Objection. No matter what his ans rver is,
it is irrelevant and immaterial as to what he heard. This
does not arise out of the cross-examination in any event.
This matter should have been covered on the direct examination.
DEFENSE: If the Court please it arises definitely out
of the cross-examination. I objected to it on cross-examination
but was overruled. The effort was made to show that the
samurai code was to the effect that prisoners of war v1ere
disgraced, that it made no difference whether they lived or
YJer e executed, and then these trick questions: Was Admiral
Toyoda a samurai? and, In his application of the rules of
interna tional warfare would he follow the samurai code? I
submit that it arises directly out of that cross-examination.
PROSECUTION: The only thing I object to in Ur. Furness'
answer is calling my questions "trick questions."
DEFENSE: Strike that.
PROSECUTION: Every time I have asked a --
PRESIDENT: Strike the word "trick" and let us continue
with - the examinr1tion, Mr. Deitch.
LAW HE~IIBER: Objection overruled.
A No, none whatsoever.
Q Could you conceive of his advoc a ting such a policy?
PROSECUTION: Obj ection. It is immaterial; it is
irrelevant.
DEFENSE: I submit that it is relevant in view of the
cross-examination to which this witness was put. I will l ea ve
it to the Court's judgment.
PROSECUTION: I just ask the Court to consider carefully
the que stion put, before they rend er any judgment: "Could
you conceive of his advocating such a policy?" I ask the
Court to carefully consider that question before allowing it.
DEFENSE: I know the Court will carefully consider every
que stion.
LAiN MEMBER: Objection sustained as to the form of the
que stion.
Q You ·were asked certain questions regarding something
that was called the Geneva Convention rules nith regard
to international warfare. Do you know whether or not
Ja pan ever ratified the Geneva Convention of 1927
providing for the tr eatment of prisoners of war?
A Japan has not r a tified that convention.
Q You testified that the draft which wa s sent out issued
by the Navy Hinistry in regard to the punishmcmt of Allied
fli er s wa s not an order; it was merely a draft submitted
to the fl ee ts a s r ef erence. Then you testified as follows:
-3919-
J~lw 11, 1949
TOYODA-Y
"Q. Does that mean that the fleets could act as they
pleased with regard to captured enemy fliers? A. Yes."
If the Court please, my reference is to page 3903 of the
record.
Could you tell us whether or not the various fleets
could authorize executions without trial for an offense
not considered a major wartime crime?
PROSECUTION: Objection. The answer is suggested in
the question. All the witness has to do is say yes or no.
I would like the witness to testify as to what he meant and
not have I'!Ir. Furness testifying as to what the witness meant.
All the witness has to do is agree.
LAW l!Ern:BER: Objection sustained as to the form of the
question.
Q Could you tell us what you meant by that answer then?
A It is because no punishment can be meted out without
following the regulation or rules.
DEFENSE: I ask that the record show the witness did not
seem to have understood my question.
Q Could you tell us whether or not at any tj_me executions
of captured enemy aircraft crews were authorized by the
Navy or by anyone else without trial and without convic-tion
for an offense considered a major wartime crime?
PROSECUTION: Objection. It still is the same type of
que stion. In effect Mr. Furness will be doing the testifying;
the witness will just answer, most likely, no or yes, but it
is still Mr. Furness' testimony.
DEFENSE: I submit that in this case, Your Honor, it is
definitely not. I am not confining myself to any regulation
or draft plan or anything. I am not asking, Does this mean
such and such, or does it not? I am asking him a very general
question. I submit I have the right to do it that way.
PROSECUTION: The question, sir, calls for a yes or no
answer. It is a long-winded question and the witness can
answer it with a yes or no answer. I would like to hear the
witness' testimony rather than the defense lawyer's.
PRESIDENT: The Law Hember will rule.
LAW HE:MBER: Objection overruled.
A No such authorization was ever given.
Q Now I show you defense Exhibit CP.
Let the record show that Mr. Deitch is now examining
the English translation.
I show you defense Exhibit CP and call your particular
attention to Annex 2, paragraphs A and B, and ask you whether
-3920-
JL;ly ll, 1949
TOYODA-Y
or not the content of the regulations which you testified
you saw after you went on duty with the Judicial
Bureau of the Navy Ministry was the same or different
from this, and if different, how it differed?
PROSECUTION: Sir, while the witness is examining that
I would like to make an objection. If it differs, Hr. Furness
is impeaching his own testimony; if it is the same, it is a
waste of time.
DEFENSE: I thought that if I didn't say it that way
the question would be definitely leading and Mr. Deitch would
have a right to object to it.
PROSECUTION: I would just like to point out, if it
differs he is impeaching his own testimony and if it is the
same it is a waste of time.
LAW MENBER: Where is he impeaching?
PROSECUTION: Sir, if it differs--this is a defense
exhibit ; they have offered it, defense Exhibit CP.
DEFENSE: I submit it doesn't impe

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

I! I!
'l'OYODA-D
War Cri mes Tribunal Courthouse
Tokyo, Honshu, Japan
Friday, 8 July 1949
The Tribunal met, pursuant to adjournment, at 0930 hours.
BAILIFF: The War Crimes Tribunal is no~ in sessi on.
. PROSECT3TIO N (Iifr. Deitch): Let the record shovJ the Tribuna:
r econvened ~t 0930 hours, 8 July 1949, all member s of the Tr ibu-nal
being pres ent; Ivlr. Deitch for the prosecution; Hr. Blakeney,
n~. Furness, Ja9anese defense counsel for the defense; the
accused, the interpreters And the reporter.
DEFENSE 0 'Ir. Furness): If the Court 'please, yesterday the
Court asked a question about the organization of the Gener al
Staff and the organization of the Ministry. When th e witness
app ears -- I think he will appear sometime next week -- he will
t es tify with regard to the organizetion of the General Staff.
A:Lso , a document showing the official organization of the
G3neral Staff will be offer ed and identified by the witness
a1d, we assume , will be admitted and read into evidence.
E-ri'dence is also be ing prepared on the organization of the
.. MLnistry. .
We c all as our next witness, Yl:JFU Kikuo •.
Kikuo YUFU, a witness for the defens e , being first duly
sworn, t es tifi ed throu gh int erpreters as follows:
DIRECT EXANil\fATION
rQuestions by _the defense (Mr. Furness):
Q Pleas e st a te your name, age, present r e sidence, and pr e s en
employment.
A My name is YUF U Kikuo, My address is Shirouchi-mura,
Yamato-gun, Fukuoka Pr ef e cture. I am 53 years old. IV!y
occupation is legal couns el.
Q Are you a graduate of the law faculty ef the Tokyo Imp erial
University; and if so, when did you graduate?
PROSECUTION: If Mr. Furness vv ill state all of this in
t he affirmative and ask this man to agree, I will not object.
DEFEHSR: I shall put the question this way, then:
Q Did you graduate from the law faculty of the Tokyo
Imperial University in 1922; and were you almost immediat el
thereaft er appoint ed a naval judiciary officer, being then
classed as a civilian?
A Yes.
DEFENSE: ~fr. Deitch ha~ suggested thP.t I put my questions
to this witness in the form of leading questions. If at ·any
time he f ee ls that my asking him leading questions is preju-dicial
to the pros ecution, he will mak.e an obj ection and I
-3870-
~ I
I OYODA-D
shell then put the question in a form thet is not leading.
Then I can go back to lea d ing que stions again, to save time.
I shall proceed to do so.
Q Did you, aft er t ha t, successfully hold the following
offices: J udi ciary offic er of t he co urt-marti al of
Yokosuka end Kure navrl districts, anc judiciary off ic er
of th e court-martial of the Combined Fle et?
A Yes .
Q It is my und erstanding thet up until ~p ril 1, 1942 , you
wer e cla s s ed as e c ivilian employe d by the Navy, but that
on the 1st of April, 1942 , pursuant t0 a change in regu-lations
r el at ive t o naval j ud iciary officers, you were
appoint ed a capt ain , l eg al?
A Yes .
Q tmd th2t at the time of your appo intment you ''~ e re senior
judiciary offic er of the court-marti al of the China Ar ea
Fleet, but thet on August 1, 1943 , you wer e appointed
judiciary off ic er of t he court-martial of the Combined
Flee t and concur rently judici ar y offic er of the c ourts-martia
l of the First, Second, Third and Sixth Flee ts? I
am r ef erring to the First, Se cond, Third and Sixth Flee ts,
not sout he rn expeditionary fl ee ts b earing thr ee of t h ~se
numb ers.
A Yes .
Q I und ers tand ~ furthe r, tha t while you were still judiciary
off ic er of the court -marti al of the Combined Fl eet , you
wer e , on the organization of t he First Task Fl eet arou nd
Marc h 1944, appoint ed to the additional duty of judiciary
offic er of t he c ourt-marti al of that First Tas k Flee t?
A Yes .
Q Then, on Novemb er 1, 1944, you wer e r eli ev ed of t hese
duties and app oint ed judiciary officer of the hig her cour ~
martial and of t he Tokyo court- ma rtial, and concurr ently
a s enior memb er of t he Legal Affairs Bur ea u of the Navy
Ministry?
A Yes .
Q But the t you did not take up thes e duti es until the 25th
of November, 1944?
A Thet is correct.
Q Now, on July 10, 1 945, it is my und erstanding, you again
took t he post of jud iciary offic er of the court-marti a l
of t he Combined Fle et as an additional duty to the duti e s
\Yhich you took up on the 25th of Novemb er, 1944; is t hat
correct?
A Yes.
Q And tha t after the war wa s over, you b eca me a r ear admiral~
l egal, on Novemb er 1 of 1945, and you wer e appointed
Chi ef of the Lega l Affairs Bureau, Navy Mi nistry , on
J:IT ovemb er 20 , and continued to hold tha t post until s ome ti m
-3 871-
'l'OYODA-D
aft er the r e organization of t he Navy Ministry into the
Second Demobilization Ministry, but r e signed this post on
January 25, 1946, on account o>f illne ss; and sinc e th en
hav e been eng aged i n the priva1te prac tic e of law?
A Yes. I WR S pr omoted to r ear a!dmir2l, l egal, on November 1
1945; th en be came t be Chi ef or the Le ga l Affairs Bur eau
of the Ne vy :Ministry on 20th o>f Novemb er. Then , when the
Navy Ministry was r eorganized to the Second Demobiliz at ion
liinistry on the 31st of Novemb er, I r emained as the Chi Ff
of th e Leg al Affairs Bur ea u of the Second Demobilization
Ministry; end so on. That is corr e ct; ev erything you said
is corre ct.
Q Now, whe n you wer e appoint ed judic iary offic er of the court
mar tiel of t he Combined Flee t ,) the First, Second, Third
and Sixth Flee ts, on August 1,1 1943, it is my und erstanding
t hp t the hee dquart ers of the Combined Fle e t was on Truk ·
Island and that you took up your post at Truk on tugust 8
and wer e dir e ct ed to make your hea dquart ers on board the
Battleship Yamato?
PROSECUTION : Sir, the pros ecmtion is willing to stipu-l
at e t ha t thi s witness will t e stify according to the aff idavit
or the rna t ter in the possession of r:~r. Furness, if Mr. Furne ss
will r ead it. We shall be ab l e to s ave a gr eat deal of time
due to tr c.ns l a tion if W8 handle it in this manner.
I think the ma tt er i n the posse ssion of Mr. Furness may
compr is e approxi mately s even pages of typewritt en matt er ; I am
no t sure, I ha ve n't count ed the pa~ e s, but I am able to obs erve
from her e t hat th ere are quit e a f ew pages. If Mr. Furne ss
will r eed th e matt er, I shall be pr epared to cross- examine wher
he is finis hed . /
DEFENSS : If t he Court pleas e ,) ther e ar e s everal objection:
to tha t. First, while I heve a r ee ord of what I think this
witness will t e stify t o , it j_ s not all co mpris ed in any state-ment.
I have -- as we do with all witnes s e s -- asked him
ques tions and t aken notes of the answers in addition to the
matt er vv hich W8S t ypewrit ten.
Furthe rmor e , I think th?. t the def endant must know vvha t
t his witness is t e s tifying to . Whe ther I r ead it or not, it
must be tr ansl a t ed to him.
I think t hat we sho ul d pr oc eedl in the r egular ord er. I
will ask the s e qu es tions i n l eading form as l ong as Mr. De itch
permits me • . I should like to expedlite mat t ers considerably;
on the other hand , I do not think :n: should r ead th e entire
stat ement, be cause, as I say, I hawe many not e s in the margin ,
her e , on which I inte nd to ask que s tions; I also ha ve not e s on
the t es timony of othe r witne ss e s.
PROSECUTION: ¥.tr. Furne ss C nd one civili en gue.rd for
t he court-martial of the Second and Third Flee ts? I did not
mention the First Flee t. If yow wa nt t he court report er to
che ck the t, I shall be gl cod to hw v e the: t done •
PROSECUTI ON : No, it is nott ne cessary.
DEFENSE: What W8S the vJ itmess 1 answer to my last qu e stim
PHESIDE:NT: Plea s e p.nswer.
A Th; t is corr ect.
Q Now, I under s t and, further" thet th e li eutenant who wa s
on duty ~ s judicia r y offic e r of the court-marti al of the
Sixth Fl ee t plso serv ed comcurrently es judiciary officer
of t he court-marti e. l of thE Fourth Fleet sinc e t his fl ee t
wes a t anchor a t Tru k ther e for e consid er able period of
time ?
A The judiciary off ic er of the court-martial of the Fburth
Fl ee t held the concurrent wost of the judiciary officer
for th e Sixth Fl ee t. I t i ffi the other W8 Y around.
Q I s ee . But, r.s I und erstemd it, you wer e not the judiciar:
offi cer for the Fourth Flee t i n 8ny way?
t., No.
Q When you r eported at Truk, I und erst vr.- 1 Court-martiel
Law , which is elrea~y in evid enc e in this ca s e ,
the Nrvy Minist er had the rwthority over ell courts-martial
in the Navy to commw nd and supervis e th cm in
r cspect to pros e cution r nd :i nve stigetion, wher ea s the
Commend cr in Chi ef of th E:: Ccombined Flee t had no higher
position so f er as court-m a~ ti ~ l we s conc er ne d than the
commanding officer of a fl e~ t court-martiel celled by
the court-mdrti Al of t he Co~bi ne d Flee t?
(The last que stion was r e~d et the r equest of the inter-pret
Er.)
DEFENSE: Perhaps I should wut tha t differ ently. I sha ll
withdraw the question and ask it differently.
Q Now, is this statement corr ce ct, th c-t'-- a ce or ding to the
Court-martial Law , the Nevy Minister had authority over
a ll courts-martial of the Nmvy to command and supervis e
them in r e spect to pros e cut:'ion and inves tig a tion, and
thPt the e. uthori ty of the Ccommander in Chi ef of the
Combined Flee t vvas on th e s cemc l ev el, a ccording to thos e
r egula tions, in r ege.rd to cco urt-marti al e s the commcmders
in chief of the constituent fl ee ts?
A Thpt is corr ect.
Q Is it true 1 too, thr t thf, Ccommand er in Chief
bined Fle e t hPd no me·ans c>ncd no ?Uthori ty to
courts-merti el of the const:'itu cnt fl ee ts?
ThPt is corr ect.
of the Com-supervis
e the
Q Now , und er these r ~ gul e tionffi and under the prrctic e wher e
a judg ment w~s r endered by tthe court-~a rti a l of a consti-tuent
fl ee t, the commanding officer of thet constituent
fl E'e t forwa rd ed a copy of El r e port and e copy of the judg-ment
to the Npvy Minist er, fuut on no occ asion wa s this
judg men t of th e court-m a rti ~ l of th ~ constituent fl ee t
submitted or for vm rd ed throwgh the Command er in Chi ef of
the Combined Fleet or throug h you, C1 s his jud iciflry
offic er?
PROSECUTIO N: Mr. Furness, ft f you will just keep on r ead-ing
end turn it over to the int errpr ct er, we will gE:·t elong
much f Ps t er. Then, we can t ake 2 r ecess and have it translat ed
to the -vv itne s s , end the witness l sp ec1-Eill y est ablish(;(). in t he erec s
ins id e the cordon in the case of mart i al law b eing
declar ed.
PROSECUTION : I submit the qu estion ha s not been answe r ed.
The quest i on was , "Whrt is a be s;ieged erea? "
DEFENSE : No; I esked him vWhPt he meent by "b e sieged ar ea
court- ma rtial. 11 I think it is r t:s ponsive . I shall esk him
fur t her quest i ons to el abor a t e .
PROSECUTI ON : ull right; grn ohead .
Q Do you know to whp t prrticolpr t er rit orie s it would app l y?
Would it apply to t erritorw ~ ithin J apan Proper or to
t er r itorie s ou t side Jepen Proper, or to both t er ri tories?
PROSECUTION : Obje ction. ~he quest ion is l ead i ng , in
t hp t it sug ges ts the Ans wer. I woul d have no objection to the
question: 11 Do you know whpt pe rr ticulc> r area it app lie s to?"
D::~:t;':t;~JS E : I submit it i s not l e c:ding , Your Eonor. I he ve
cover ed t he entir e world, so f prr c:s I c?n s ee , in "J epAn Pr opt- r,
ou t side Japan Pr oper, either, orr both."
PROSECUTION: Sir, the v er w first question I objected to
wes ob ject ed to for the r eason tthPt it sugg ested th pt answe r,
thet it wrs l ead ing , end th e answer would ha ve come back "Yes .rr
Then I c>ske d thr t he define the word "b es i e ged t erri tory" so
t ha t we c ould und erst Pnd whe therr this men knew whe t he wes
t r l ki ng ab out. tnd t he v ery l as t questi on st a t es the territory,
J apPn Pr oper . I should like to have the witness do th e t es ti-fying
on this pa rticul2r point. I hpve no objection to
]:Ir . Furness ' l ePC. i ng on other pcoints, but c;s long es we ar e on
t his point I would like th e witmess to t es tify on this point.
PRESIDENT : The Law Me.l'!lber will rul e .
L AW r-~--Jif.iBER : The obj e ct ion is over ruled .
-3878-
'J1 0YODr .. .. D
~ Only J Rpe.n Pro per.
Q Do you know of any inst Rnc e whe r e such ~ bes ie ged area
court-marti e. l we. s s e t up?
f. Duri ng the J apane s e- Russo War, 8 b esieged ar e!e. court-mprtiC'l
was est <1 blished e.t Tekes hiki, in Kyus hu.
Q Wer e eny es t c>blished during this l E' st wer?
t The re wa s no such court-merti al es t e.b lished during the
l nst we r.
Q Now, among some of t he fl ee ts, did some of the fle ets h~ ve
no court-martial of their own?
~ During the early part of the war, I think ther e were some
fl ee ts whi ch had n o court-martir l. However, by the time
the end of th e w2 r WPS clos e , I think all of the fl ee ts
had cou rts-ma rti al.
Q You ere r eferring t o the time th2t you wer e s enior member
of the Legal ~ ff a irs Bureau, I t eke it?
[;. Yes.
Q I s it 2 f eet tha t the Navy Minister ha d exclusive
authority to s e t up a sp e cial court-martiel, 8nd that t he
Commende r in Chief of the Com0 ined Fleet, th e commanders
i n c hi ef of constituent flee ts, ~ nd the Chief of the
Nava l Gener el St e. ff he.d no a uthority wha t ev er to s e t up
special courts-mar ti al?
n That is corre ct.
Q And is it also true t hP t befor e any such court-me.rtie.l
could be s et up, the command ing offic er of 2 fl ee t hac. to
submit e r eq uest to the NAvy Minister st ~ ting the need
for it, and tha t when such court-merti .? l vJe.s s E.. t up, t hA t
f eet 1iv8 s announced by t he Nnd t he: t, likew is e , when the loc ality wher e the accused
Ne vy per s onnel wer e loc e t ed we s cut off fro n the s ea t of
the Ne. vy c ourt-ma rti al, they could be tri ed by an t r my
court-mertiel loc pt ed in the sarl'E area whe r e the accused
we r e loc r-.t ed'?
A Yes, t he t wr s per mitted.
Q Did you ev er, howev er, hear of any ca s e s whe r e t r my
per s onne l wer e tri 0d by Nevy court- ma rti al, or Na vy
per sonnel wer e tried by an 1. r my court-m2 rti al?
fl. No.
Q Now , while you wer e the judiciary offic er of the court-ma
rti Pl of the Combined Fleet end concurrently the s enior
judici ar y officer of the court-martial of th e Sixth
Flee t, did you ev er rec eive eny r eport fro m yo ur subordina-t-a
li eut enant, leg al, who wa s alwa ys st a tioned ct Truk
wher e the Sixth Fle et h~d its headquarters, or from a nyone
els e e. t any time , any r eport or rumor th8t subrr.arines
und er that fle e t were eng age d i n the prectic e of annihi-l
at ing survivors or cr ew members of enemy ships sunk in
-3880-
•
TOYODt..-D
the I ndian Ocean or a n~v h e r e else?
PROSECUTION: Sir, I h?,Ve t wo objections to th?t question.
I do not beli eve that it would be in t he of f icic,l cours e
of t his witness ' busine ss to r eceive such r eports froQ his
judici r l officer.
The s econd obj ection is the t t h is lieut enBnt wa s not
el ways ettached to the Sixth Fle et. The t estimony is that he
wa s concurrs ntly the l ege l officer for the Fourth enG. the
Sixth Fl ee ts, end e ls o thPt he was d is pa tc hed by t his witne s s
to t hese fl ee ts to t rke cer e of th e l ega l business when there
WB S ?ny l egel business , Ther e is no evidence to sh ow tha t
t h is l eg Ell officer~ t r.is m~n 1 s s ubor di ne. t e , WAS Rl ways with
the Sixth Flee t.
In any event, I believe my first obj ection should tPke
cpr e of t he question.
DEFENSE : If t he Court pleese , t his witnes s ha s t es tifie d
thet he was th e s enior judiciary offic er of t ho Sixth Fleet,
hims elf; t hc:; t und er him WPS P li eut enC~n t, l ege l, who Yv PS con-curr
ently th e judicia ry off ic er for t he court-ma rti el of the
Fo urth end Sixth Flee ts. I think thet tPke s cer e of the
obj e ction. Thes e t v-~r o mE n compo sed th e entire l e g2 l org eniz R tion,
a s I und er st pnd it, of t he Sixth Fleet, If Mr. Deitch WEmts
me to bring thr-- t out or r ei t er Bt e it, I shall bE: very happy
to co so, br: caus e it is d i ff icult to r emember t E' stimony.
PROSECUTIO N: Sir, my main objection , which wa s unanswe r ed,
·w Rs t he t it we s not in the officia l cours e of t his mRn 1 s
·busine ss as the judici al offic er of t he Combined Fle et or of
the Sixth Flort t o r e ceive such r eports. Such an order to
annihila t e survivors would be an oper etionel ord er. If
J!Ir. Furness s hows the t it VvP S i n the officiel cours o of this
1men 1 s business to r eceiv e such r eports, I will withdr aw my
objection. But he first must l ey the groundwork befor e he asks
such a qu e s t i on,
DEF'El\TSE : Well, I she ll bE he.ppy to e.sk further ques tions.
I do not think I need t o l 2y any groundwork a s yet. I do ple.n
to esk furt her questions on this. I she ll follow whichever
proc ed ur e t hE: Qourt wishE'S r1e to follow.
PROS ~ C UT IO N : First I would like th e groundwork to be
.l r i d befor e we get Pny such t esti mony, to s how thet t his man
1 W~ s to get such r Pports.
Lt.'N N!EI:.ffiER : The obj ection is sust c- ined ?S to t he qu e stion
Rt the pr e s ent time , until the pr oper groundwork is lPid.
PR:ZSIDENT: The Court vd ll nov1 r eces s until El evE:n o 1 clock.
(r.t 1055 hours P r e c2ss wr s t eken until 1105 hours.)
-3881-
July 8, 1949
TOYODA-Y
PROSECUTION (Mr. Deitch): Let tne r ecord shov1 the Tribuna l
r econvened a t 1105, t he same pe r sonnel pre sent prior to the
r ec e s s being pr esent aft er the r ec e ss.
I r emind th e ~ itne ss he is still und er oa th.
DIRECT EXMH NATION (C ontinued)
Que stions by the def ens e (Mr. Furnes s):
Q Could you t ell us whethe r or not the li eut enant, l egal,
judicia ry offic er, who s erved concurr ently n s court-ma rtia l
officer of the 4th Flee t and th e 6th Fl ee t, wa s al ways
stationed a t Truk when the headquart ers of the 6th Fleet
v:a s loc a t ed nt Truk?
A Ye s, h e iva s.
PROSECUTIO N: Si r, if Mr. Furne ss would t ak e ca r e of
t ha t f irst ob j e ction f irst , we mi ght save some time , tha t is,
it be ing in h i s official course of busi ne ss to r ec eive such
repor ts. If the man says it vra s his off ic ia l cour se of busine ss
t he n he can go ahead.
DEFENSE: I will try to comply Y.r ith your 111ishe s , although
I think I should be a llowed to proc eed in my onn 1'ray.
Q Could you t ell us whether or not the annihi l a tion ef
survivors of the crews of sunk en ships vJOuld be an
ill ega l a ct and subj ect the per son orderi ng it to court-mar
t ia l und er the J apane se Navy ?
A Ye s , t hnt ':rould.
Q \r.Tould it hav e been the duty of the li eut enant, l ega l 7 vrho
wa s se rving a s the judicia r y offic er of the 6t h Fl eet,
to r eport it to you n s the judicia ry of f ic er of the court-ma
rti a l of th e 6th Fl ee t?
PROSECUTION : If I~r. Furne ss vri l l add t he YJords , ":i.f he
knewn' --
DEFSNSE : All right , if he hea rd of it.
PRO SECUTION: If he knew .
DEF:CNSJ::": : I f he heard of it; if he heard of such ma t te rs
ha ppening .
A Yes.
Q In tha t ca s e , if he had so r eported it, wha t would have
been your duty?
A An i nv e stiga tion i mmedi a t ely would be l a unched age i nst
the J 0.pane se Nevy per sonnel 1-_rho committed ill ega l a cts.
Q If tha t of fic er who wa s J•e sponsibl e had been a f l a g offic er,
tha t is, an of fic er of the raru{ of r ear admiral or above ,
1"7ha t ,-,ould ha ve bee n your duty?
A If ther e \Jer e a ny fl c:.g offic ers involved in such incid ents ?
sinc e the j urisdiction over fl a g offic e rs r e s t s ~ ith higher
courts-ma rti a l, the 6th Fl ee t court mar tia l ~ o u ld r ef er
-3882-
u, 1. ·1 L\ ., 949
th is mat t er to the higher c ourt-mar ti.a l .
Q 1!/ould you have had th e same duty i f you ~1. 1 d hea rd of it
from a ny source other t han t his lieutenar t, legal, who
was the judiciary officer servi ng with tt e 6th Fleet?
PROSECUTIOl~ : Objection. It d oesn 't make a1 y diff erence
whmt this man 1 s duty 'rould be i f he had heard . I thinl-r. the
evlidence mill bear out the fa ct t he man never t eard about it
so ~hat is the point in having all t his evidenc~ produ~ed
b efore this Tribuna l. It i s irrelevant and i rnm.1te r ial.
DEFENSE : :Mr. Deitch sa i d that I mus t l ay t it means? it seems to me it is
proper to use in that sense--to us e it in Ja pane s e r~ther than
English.
PROSECUTION: Si:c , I.!r. Furne ss has be en v.. s ing the V'ord s ,
1'spe cit'11 courts-mBrtial," "temp or o.ry courts-ma rtia l ?" " GUl\TRITSU, rr
"GD1lRIT SU-KAIGI." He mor e or l e ss us e s the Jap ane s e '7hen he
pl ee se s or the E'.1glish "Then he pl en se s. If he is to use the
Eng lish l nnguage , I suggest he stick to the Eng lish l anguage .
I don 't think th e v: ords, "GUNRIT SU" or "Gill'JRITSU-KAIGI11 are
hard to tra nsla t e .
INTERPRETER: They a re, though.
-3887-
July 8, 1949
TOYODA-Y
"GUN:S. ITSU-KAIGI" is usunlly tr a nsL21ted "milit r1 ry tribuna l"
a s contrasted to "c ourts-me.rti cl.n "GUNR ITSU" -- mil it.:J.ry l aw;
in t his CRs e , nava l l aw . But then, a s f a r as military l aw ,
na va l lm-v or na vnl l"egul ntions are conc erned, the re will be
a bout seven or eight Jacnne se ~ ords that have to be tra nsla ted
exa ctly t he same but th~ c ontents of which would a ll be diff er ent.
DEFENSE: Might this be a sugg0 stion: tha t the GUI'ffiiTSU-KAIGI
is the military tribuna l or Pilitary commission, .:md the
GUNrt iTSU is the regul ntion or order VIh ich authorized it to b e
se t up a nd define s its jurisdiction ::>.nd 1•;hnt it may try?
PROSECUTION: I am not prepa r ed to a cc ept such suggestion.
The int erpr et er j ust sa id there are ap proxima t ely seven
d iff er 0nt mean i ng s t o the r.rord "GUNIGTSU'; --
I NTERPRETER: No, it's the other way ar ound.
PROSE CUT IOl'J: I ,.., ould like to hn ve the question sta t ed in
English. If Mr. Furne ss cannot sta t e the que stion in English
I sugg e st vre go on to some other question.
PRESIDENT: The Law l'-1embe r v.Jill e.dvis e the Tribunal.
LAVJ J'1EHBER: It appe11r s that the two t erms are t echni cal
ter ms r ef erring to cel"tain t ype s of courts in th e Japc-mese l\f[l vy
or J apa ne se l an And ar e not susc ep tible to tra nsla tion into
exa ct English equivalents. We hav e in the re cor d r egul ations
se tting up the var ious Japanese courts. It vrould app0ar thnt
th e a t tempt to us e t he English equivalent would add to comple t e
confusion i n the record. By the ref er ence to documents v:hich
a r e a lr eady i n evidence it is very ea sy to find out vha t the
jurisdiction of t hose pa r t icul ar courts wa s .
DEFENSE: I thiru{, also , if Your Honor pl ea se , that
~~ . Deitch, when he wa s putting in his prosecution evid enc e ,
use d exactly the same t erms and examined ~ itn e ss e s t he same ryay
tha t I have.
PROSECUT I ON : There we re definition s us ed i n the prose cu-tion
's evidence immedia t ely follo1:ring such J apa nese words.
DEFENSE~ You must know tha t definition; I sugges t you
s t a t e it.
PROSECUTION: Tha t is exactly vrh a t I ha'le been trying to
ge t r1r. Furne ss to do for th e l a st half-hour. He is a sking the
questions~ I am not a sking the questions. If he doesn't know
~ ha t the definition is he shouldn't ask the question.
DEFENSE: This may be o£'f-the -r ecord , but I suppose this
Tribunal r::i ght be consid 0red a GUlf...l-l_ITSU -KAIG I nnd the ord et· s
se tting it up a GUNRITSU: I don't kno·w.
PROSECUTION: Now ]1r . Ful"ne ss hDs offered another sugg e stio r:
different from his first so t he Tribunal can see thnt no mat t er
wha t he sa ys conc 0rning the se words he do e s not have knowledge
of the mea ning ~ and ther efor e I suggest he put it in the Eng lish
-3888-
J r;l_y 8, 1949
TOYODA-Y
language .
Q
A
Q
DEFENSE; : I wi 11 pl" oce ed n s th e Law Hemb er sugge sted.
·~na t wa s the r ea son for the issuance of t his GUNRITSU,
or military r egula tion, by the Combined Fl ee t?
This GUNHITSU, or military regul a tion, was established
du.rj_ng the tenure of my pr ed ecessor and therefore I wa s not
pre sent when it W[! S established. However, I be lieve tha t
the reason for the establishment or ena ctment of t his
GUNRITSU v1<1 s because the Japan e se N2vy might occupy some
territory in the f uture.
At the time it wa s issued, that is, in Dec ember 1941,
is it corre ct tha t it had not ye t been settl ed wh ether the
Combined Fleet would have any jurisdiction over occupied
territories?
PROSECUTION: Obj ection. This nava l l~egulation which ;:m s
pa ssed in Dec ember 1941 has been mentioned severa l time s, but
we d on't ~ no w wha t the contents of the regulation are , to sta rt
off with; and , i n the second pl a c e, this witnes s sa id tha t he
~a s not f amilia r with it, tha t his pr edece ssor handled the ma tt er.
In vi ew of the f act tha t he is not f omiliar ~ ith the ma tter, I
doubt whether he can testify on this l a st question.
DEFENSE : I submit tha t he can . He is a m.:m of long
experience. I think he attained the highest rank a s l ega l
offic er in t ho J apanese Navy--there may have been r. V:ic8 Admiral,
I don't knou--and I submit that his t es timony has probative
value.
LAW I"EJIJIBER : I can't follo>:J vJha t probative va lue th e
t e stimony ha s u pon that point. I would be gl ad to hear an
exp l ana tion.
DEFENSE: At the time that this GUJ\TRITSU was issued, it
had not yet been settled whethe r or not the Combined Fle et would
have any jurisdiction over occupied t erritori e s. I ref er, if
the Court please, to defense Exhibit G, •;rhich is a "Restricted
Ordinance (NA IREI)" issued 10 April 1942, v1hich sta tes in pa ragrar
2: "The Command er in Chief of any of the are a fl ee ts belonging
to the Combined Fleet is subject to the command of the Comr1and er
in Chi ef of the Combined Fleet, exc ept for matters of military
administra tion of occupi ed t erritory. 11 Tha t is defense Exhibit
G, _• r: cord pnge 1196.
PRESIDENT: Ye s, r1Tr . Deitch.
PROSECUTION: Defense still ha s not shown ~?hy this rn:::tn
should have such knowl edge. Why is he an ex pert on this just
because he wa s a n admiral, just because he was a judicial
officer? Why does he know this?
LAW ]I[ENBER: Obj ection overruled ; he may answ er.
A In April 1942 th e fleet regula tion wa s r evised and in t his
r evi s ion it wa s provided that the administra tion of the
-3 889-
Jpl_y 8, 1949
'1.'0::0DA-Y
occupied territories would be r emoved f rom thos e powers
entrusted ~ ith the Combined Fle et. Ther efore I pr e sume
thot up to that time the Combined Fle et had the jurisdiction
over the occupi ed territories.
Q Could you tell us whether or not the Comma nd er in Chi ef
of the Combined Fleet had any right to interfere or to
review any of the judgments r end ered by the military
tribuna l, GUNRITSU-KAIGI?
PROSECUTION: The witne ss ha s alrea dy t e stified to that
ea rli e r this morning; ther e is no need to have it two, three
or four times from the same witne ss.
DEFENSE~ The witness testified to the review of court-ma
rtia l judgments-- judgments rend er ed by courts - martial, v-.rh ich
I think in Japanes e is called GUNPO-KAIGI. I am asking him now
about a differ ent typ e of tribunal. He ha s not t e stifi ed to
t his a s yet.
PROSECUTION: I believe the r ecord will show he ha s.
LA1~T MEND3ER : Obj ection ov errul ed.
A You say, "milita ry tribuna l," Hr. Counsel, but INhere wa s
this milita ry tribunal tri a l h eld? In other words, whos e
military tribuna l is this; wher e is it e sta blished?
Q Any milita ry tribunal, GUNRITSU-·KAI GI, set up by constituent
fl eets of the Combined Fl ee t whic h had j urisdiction ove r
the military administration of occupi ed t erritori e s.
A No, the Comma nder in Chie£ of the Combi ned Fl ee t did no t
have such power. That power r e sted ,-.rith the commander in
chief of the fleet which he ld such milita ry tribunal and
~hich had such milita ry r e gulation.
PRESIDENT: This Court will now recess unti 1 1330 hours
t his a ft e rnoon.
At 1205 hours a rec e ss was t aken.
-3890-
JuJ.ly 8 , 1949
TO:lYODA- Y
AFTERNOON SE SSIO N
Th e Tribuna l me t, pursuc nt to recess, a t 1330 hours.
BAILIFI'': Th e Wa r Crim.e s Tribun21 l is nmv in session.
PROSECUTION (1~. Deitch) : Let tthe rec ord sho ~ the Tribunal
roc convened a t 1330, a ll present prior:· to the recess being pres e nt
e f~ter the .re c e ss with the exception of Colonel Pierce .
PR:2;SIDENT: Let the recot·d shm·J th2 t Colonel Pierce is
ab ssent this a ft e r n oon on officia l business.
PROSECUTION: I remind th e v.Titne ss he is still under oath.
Kilmo YUFU, a :·d tness for the d e fense, ha ving be en previously
suCTo rn , r e sumed the stand and t e stified through int e rpre t ers as
f 0 J 11 0 1iJ s :
DIRECT EXA~UNATJION (Continued)
QuQes tions by the d efense (Mr . Furness):
Q Did you a s th e jud icia ry offic e r' of the court - marti a l of
tpe Combin ed Fleet end of the lst, 2d, 3d a nd 6th Fl eets
e ver r ec eive a ny cop i e s or r epor ' ts of jud goents of any
military tribuna ls, GUNRITSU-KA rGI?
A No.
Q You t es tifie d tha t on the 25th rnf November 1 944 you
transf e rred to the Lega l A ff ~ irs1 Bureau of the Na vy
Ninistry. Could you tell us whe;the r or not a ft e r you
r eport ed for duty th er e --
DEFE NSE : Do you vvn nt me to go om a sk i ng l ea ding que stions,
Mr •• De itch ?
PROSECUTION: Ye s, pl ea s e .
DEFENSE : I v; i thdraw tha t ques ti_on then .
Q Is it correct tha t a fter you we r ·e tra nsf e rred on the 25th
of Noverab e r 1944 to the LGga l .Af'f a irs Bur eau of the Navy
Ministry you lea rned tha t ar oundl S ep temb Gr 1944 the chief
of the Na val Affairs BurGau, Navry Ministry, ha d sent
communications sugg e sting to chi.efs of sta ff of all fleets
that regula tions entitled " Mi li t ;a ry Law for the Puni shmGnt
of Aircraft Cre-ws" should be e st;a bli shed, and tha t a round
October 1944 th e ch i ef of the L0 ga l Affairs Bur eau had
notifi ed the judicial corps offLcers attached to fleet
h ea dqua rt e rs a s to wh a t e1 cts conur1itted by enemy cdr crews
should be con sid er ed crime s tria.ble by military tribunals
s e t u p under this regulation?
A I know of those f a cts bec ause a f 'ter I a ssumed my post a s
the s enior burea u me mber of the :Lega l Aff a irs Bureau of
the Na vy 1Unistry in November l9l44 I saw thos e mc_t t c rs in
the documents in th e Bure a u.
-3891-·
" T1' 1Y 8 , 1949
1~Uldn't "le v e s ee n i t" --
ass umes t het such .?n or d£r exists. I submit to t he Court thc:: t
the questi on is mos t unf e ir, end I e.sk .ror r e ccnsid er ~ tion.
PHOSECUT I ON : Sir, t he dir e ct exem: ,nBtion V>?S most unf e. ir.
Mr . Furnes s st ood UP the r e c:md .ssked t h ~ . s men questions which
th e rr:B n answer ed by- "I d on't know," "I c on 1 t kno' v," "No."
Ev erything WPS P n ega tiv e answer. It w~ s outsidE· his knowled ge,
But t he t e stimony went into the r e c or d; the Tr ib~n e l got the
innuend o fro m the quest ion. That is why I heve to cross- examine
on th1.s.
L~W J 1E~:'iBI.R : The obj s ction is sust r j nPd on thos e grounds.
The pros e cution is entitl ed to bring out ~ow , if su ch an order
exist ed , the l ege l office r co uld heve s c~ n it.
D!iiFENSB: Yes , b ut he is ask ing why i"J.e did n't s se it,
end it t1ss urne s thf~t such a n ord er is in eJ;istence.
PROSECUTION: Si1, I should like to r~ve the l as t thr £e
or four que stions and answe rs r ead b a ck, a~d t hen I think the
Trib unel will ge t the wh ol e point.
DEFE NSL: I will se.y t h is, t he. t I shotJ.ld ne v e r ask l se.ding
qu estions on o. ir e ct ex<1mina tion, whethe r I am invit ed by this
couns el or not. It puts ~e in a positi on ~ hich is v ery
emb a rr assing .
PROSECUTI ON : This has nothing to do w ~th whether it is a
l ead ing question or not, It was brought out on the direct
exerni na ti on; the t is t he sole point.
I shculd like to finish with this wit n ess, if possible,
by f our o' clo ck . \N ill you r eed the last ttree or four que stions
and c nswe rs?
(The r e cord wa s r ead by the court r e pc~t er as requested.)
DEFENSE : Tha t last question, " ••• why your le ga l officer
should ha v e s een an ord er for annihilating the cr ew s of enemy
ships , 11 ass ume s tha. t such an ord er is in e:~:: ist en c e, t he t t h is
witne ss knovvs about i t , ~md r.s k s why his l eg 81 of fic e r should
-3907-
TOYOD/~-D
not h~ve se en it. I think it is e: most unfair qu estion, and
would be unf air in any court in the world.
PROSECUTION: Sir, I should like to havs the entire natter
r ead -- the ergument of counsel~ lfy answer teke s cer e of all
his obj ections. Th~t is why I want it r ead .
(The r ecord vve s r ead by th e court r eporter as requested.)
LAvV ~:JE~ffiER : Recons idere tion is given. The pr evicu s
ruling is withdrawn. The obj ection is sustained as to the form
of t he question, in line with my previous ruling. In other
words , the prosecution may inquire how the legal officer could
have se en thos e ord ers~ if they existed.
Do you have any question in mind, Mr. Deitch?
PROSECUT ION: Nothing, sir, excep t that Mr. Furness wa s
overruled t wice; he kept pressing his objection, and now he
has been sust ained . I have s everal points that I heve not men-ti~
ned to show why this question is perfectly proper, but I
shall go on to something els e .
Q Was ther e any r egul ation in effect which allowed the Navy
to try Army personnel, or vic e versa?
A On the Navy side, ther e w~ s th e Navy Court-martial Law;
and the nrmy had a corre s ponding Military Court-martial
Law which provided that.
Q Tell me what the Ne.vy 1 s regulation provided.
I will withdraw the question.
Q ll.s l egal offic er of the Combined Fle et, you had legel
offic ers und er your command who were attached to the Second,
Third, Fourth and Sixth Fleets, is that correct?
?~ Yes.
Q Were you und er the Com~ander in Chi ef of the Combined
Fleet?
f" Yes.
Q Did you t ~ke ord ers fro m him?
A Yes ,
Q Did you advise him on l ega l ma tt ers?
f. Yes.
Q ·Nere t he se l egel offic ers who were under your command and
wh o were attached to the Second, Third , Fourth and Sixth
Fleets as leg r. l officers, also und er the command of Toyoda?
DEFENSE: WhC~t are the numbers -- Seconc , Third end Fourth,
or First, Second end Third!
PROSECUTION: I di d not s ey the First. I said Second,
"l'hirc. , Fourth end Six t h.
t No; they were under the co mmenders in chi ef of the
-3908- ,.
,,
l r
I
,,.
TOYODA-D
Q
A
court s - martial to whi ch t hey we r e ass igned .
You me en to say that you were subordinate t~ Toyoda and
he was your co ~~ endi ng officer, and your subordinat es, in
turn, we r e not under the co~1 and of Toyoda? Is thet wha t
you er e tr ying to i nd ic at e to t his Tribunal?
Yes , that i s what I am indic at ing.
Q Now, could orders be issued by Toyoda to you with r e gerd
to l ege l ma tters of t he Combined Fl ee t?
A Yes .
Q t:,nd we r e the proper channels of r ep orts to you, as legel
offic er of the Combined Flee t, through the Command er in
Chiof of t he Combined Flee t fro m you?
DEFE NSE: Wha t is the question -- to you, fro m you, or
wha t? I C. on' t know what i t mea ns.
PROSECUT I ON : Then l e t th e witne ss t es tify.
DEFENSE: I do not t hink it c an be tr ans lat ed , The
tr ansl8tor has to underst and what it mea ns. I don't. Doe s
t he Court und erst .s nd it?
PROSECUTION : Sir, it s eems to me t hat I have been un ~ uly
haras sed in my cro ss- examinat ion by numerous obj e ctions which
obviously wer e meant to de l ay t he proceed ings and e, lso to give
the wit nes s possibly mor e time, or to cover the matter so
t he t t he Tr i bunal could not follow the groundwork l a i d for
my ques tions.
I submi t tha t if t he questi on is not cle ar to the wit ne ss,
th e witness c an so state.
DEFENSE: Objections ha ve been made bec ause it was felt
by counsel that the qu es tions were obj ecti onable . That is the
only r ea son.
I submit t h~ t I do not und erst and tha t lest question; I
c. on ' t think the Court does, cmd I don't think the int erpr e t er
does .
Lt-W NIEMBER: The obj ection is overrule d . The witness may
answer t he question if he underst pnd s it .
I NTERPRETER : (To r epo1·ter) Ma y I he ve the question pgc:Jin ;
will you r eed it?
(The question was r ead by the r eporter.)
PHOSECUTI ON : You have bee n overruled , Mr, Furness. If
t he v: itne ss doe s not und erst ken until Mondey ,
11 J ul y 1 94 9 , at 0900 hours.)
-3 911-
July 11, 1949
TOYODA-Y
War Crimes Tribunal Courthouse
Tokyo, Honshu, Japan
Monday, 11 July 1949
The Tribunal met, pursuant to adjournment, at 0900 hours.
BAILIFF: The War Crimes Tribunal is now in session.
PiWSECUTION (Mr. Deitch): Let the record show the Tribunal
reconvened at 0900 hours, 11 July 1949, all members of the
Tribunal bei::1g present, Mr. Deitch for the prosecution,
I.ffr. Blakeney, I.Jr. Furness, Japanese defense counsel for the
defense ~ the accused, the interpreters and the reporter.
Kikuo YUFU, a witness for the defense, having been previously
sworn, r e sumed the stand and testified through interpreters as
f ollows:
PROSECUTION: I remind the witness he is still under oath.
Your witness.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Que st ions by the defense (Mr. Furness):
Q You testified that the judiciary officers of the Second,
Third and Sixth Fleets were your subordinates. Were
they subordinates as the judiciary officer of the court-ma
rti al of the Combined Fleet or judiciary of fi cer of the
Second, Third and Sixth Fleets?
A They ~ ere not subordinates of mine as judiciary officer
for the court-martial of the Combined Fleet. I was the
senior judiciary officer of the Second, Third and Sixth
Fleets court-martial and they were subordinates of mine
in that capacity.
Q And any legal matters tha t arose ~rd th respect to the
First , Second , Third and Sixth Fleets, would you take
these matters up with the commander in chi ef of the
Combined Fleet or the commanders in chief of these
respective fleets?
A I did not and do not report legal matters to the commander
in chief of the Combined Fleet. Legal matters within the
First, Second, Third and Sixth Fleets are re ported to the
r e spective commanders in chief of such fl ee ts.
Q Then is it correct that only matters relating to personnel
and units directly under the cow.aand of the Combined Fleet,
and not under the command of any constituent fleets, be
taken up with the commander in chief of the Combined Fleet?
PROSECUTION: Sir, I see no reason for this question.
It has been covered on direct examination; it has been covered
on cross-examination. We have had the answer from the witness
on both direct and cross, and we will get the same answer now
on redirect. The first three questions were answered on direct
and cross ; I didn't object to those. This is the fourth question
that ~.r i l l c a 11 for the same answer. I ask that Mr. Furness go
on to something new or something whe~e there is some doubt in
-3912-
,,
July 11, 1949
TOYODA-Y
his mind;that might be proper r edir e ct examination, but we
r eceived the same answer to this que stion on dir ect and cross;
th er e is no reason to go i nto the same matter on redir ect.
DEFENSE : If th e Court please, I wish to cl ear up certain
ma tt ers from wh ich an implication might be drawn from the
quest ions on cross- examination. I submit that I have a right
to do so and that is all I am doing. I submit it is well wit hin
the li mits of th e ma tters rais ed on cross-examina tion. I don't
think there wa s any direct answer to this on either di rect or
cross-examina tion.
PRO SECUTION: Ther e is nothing to be cleared up. We
received the answer on direct and on cross-examination, and
we will ge t the same answer on redirect. It is just a wa ste
of time and I ask that the re cord be checked so tha t Mr. Furne ss
will not go i n to other matter which has be en covered on direct
and cross so that we can finish with t h is witne ss quickly. I
doubt if I'rr. Furness can think of an y other que stions if the
Tr ibunal rul e s that this ma tter has b een covered on direct
and c r oss-examina tion.
LAW ~lEMBER: Obj ection overrul e·d.
A That is correct. This matter is cl early stipulated and
pr ovided in th e naval courts-martial law.
Q Could you t ell us whether or not at any time your of fic e
was in the same place or on the same shi p vhich vm s us ed
by Admiral Toyoda as his offic e or headquart er s during the
time tha t you were judicial off'ic er for the court-martial
of the Combined Fleet?
A No, ther e we re no oc ca sions.
Q Where wer e the r e sp ective offic e s ?
PROSECUTION: I am ob j ecting because this has be en
t e stifi ed to b efor e . It was on the battleship Yamato; it wa s
never on t he ~fu sashi. Doe s th e Court want to hear it again?
DEFENSE ~ It has not been t e stified to. Admiral Toyoda's
headquarters were at time s at Hiyoshi, at time s on the battle-shi
p Oyodo. I don't know about the battleshi p Yamato at a ll.
I am asking this quest ion and I thi nk I have the right to.
The re is not a single stat ement by this witne ss in his t e stimony
as to wh e th er his offic e wa s at the same place or not.
PROSECUTION: All right, I will r ead the t e stimony.
DEFENSE : These obj ections ar e trivial 9 and I have a
right to bring it out on r edir ect. Mr. De itch would like to
cut off all evid enc e of th e def ens e .
PROSECUTION: They are not trivrial. This witness has
been on t h e stand for t wo days. Th e def ense insists on putting
him on dir ect examina tion by question and answer and the
matt er has been covered. There is n o r ea son to go into it
time and t ime aga in. I ·will find it for the Tribunal.
DEFE I~SE : All ri ght, f ind it then, unl e ss the Court
-3913-
July 11, 1 949
TOYODA-Y
wa nts to rul e before he delays the proceedings of this trial
further. He t es tifi ed that his headquart ers were on the
}~ sashi ; he never t e stified that Admiral Toyoda's headquart ers
,,~,e re not thE're. I submit that all the se state men ts about how the
def ens e should conduct its case are out of place by counsel
of the opposing side. We conduct our case the way 1Ve think j t
should be conducted and not the way the prosecution thinks or
anyone els e .
PROSECUTIOi\J : The prosecution would like to finish the
case some time this year.
PRESIDENT: Let us stop the se arguments. Produc e the
statement that you said you we re going to, Hr . Deitch, and
the Law Fer1.ber will then rule.
PROSECUTION: I will, sir. On page 3873 , th e ~itness
t e stified: "The h eadquarters of the Combined Fleet was on the
battleship n~ sashi. However, I wa s order ed to report on board
t he Yamato." The first answer on page 3873.
DEFENSE: And that , you submit, is t estimony as to where
the headquart ers of the Combined Fl ee t was throughout the
period of this man's service with the Combined Fleet, and that
wa s wh er e Admiral Toyoda's headquarters wer e throughout the
t erm of his service; is tha t your submission?
PHOSECUTION: I have addressed my remarlcs to the Tribunal.
I would like the Tribunal to look at that portion.
LA1N HEJiffiER : There appears to be some doubt in the record
a s to the location of the headquarters during the entire
per iod ; obj ection overruled.
A In June of 1944 after th e Saipan operation wa s over
I returned to the J apane se homeland. At that time I vra s
on board the warship Haguro. Then I think it wa s in
the l att er part of June that I transferred from th e
·warship Haguro to the warship Musashi. At that time the
flagship of the Combined Fleet wa s the warshi p Oyodo.
Ther efore, Admiral Toyoda wa s on board the wa rship Oyodo
v1hi l e I was on board the war ship r.~rusashi.
Q Anything furth er?
PHOSECUTIOJ'J: May I ask the Tribunal a lso to check the
question and ans·wer on the bottom of page 3874 ~.'Then they have
the opportunity, t he last que stion and answer.
PRESIDENT: Let the witness answer , l~r. Deitch, and
the n you may mak e your statement.
A As I t e stifi ed the day before yesterday 5 I participated
i n the Leyte Bay ba ttle on board the warship lfusashi.
Howev er, the Husashi was sunk in that op eration. Then
i n the latt er part of October 1944 aft er the J:.!:usashi
v1a s sunk I wa s plac ed on board the warship Naga ta and
in the end of November of the same year I r e turned to
the Japanese homeland . Thus I never s erved on board the
same ship or a t the same place a s Admiral Toyoda.
-3 914-
~~uly 11 , 1949
TOYODA-Y
Q How many t :Lme s did you conf er with Admiral Toyoda whil e
you were judiciary officer of the court-ma rtial of the
Combined Fl ee t ?
PROSECUTION: This doe s not in any way a ri se out of the
cross-exami na tion.
DEFENSE: It does. He said it wa s his duty to t ak e up
l egal ma tt ers with th e Command er in Chief of the Combi ned
Fl ee t. I v,rant t o show ho v,~ ma ny time s he found it necess ary
to and I submit tha t I have the right to. If every question
is going to be objected to and argued about, it d elays these
proc eeding s far mor e than if the s e futil e obj ections were not
mad e .
LAW ]t1E1,:'fBER : Obj ection overruled.
PRESIDENT~ Mr . De itch~ I do not ha ve that pag e number
tha t you gave us .
PROSECUTION: I r ef er the Tr ibuna l to page 3874 , th e
l a st que stion and a nswe r on tha t pag e, to pa ge 3876, the l a st
que stion and answer on tha t pag e.
A Just onc e . As I t e st i f ied a little ''lhile ago, in June
of 1944 I changed my offic e from th e warship Haguro t o
t he warship Jlc~us a shi. Admiral Toyoda had just th en a ssumed
hi s new pos t a s t he Commander in Chi ef of the Comb i ned
Fl eet , and I we nt t o ca ll on Admira l Toyoda on board the
warship Oyodo to pay my r e sp ects to him. Tha t wa s the
only oc ca sion tha t I sp oke with hi m.
Q You t e sti f i ed t ha t t he offic er who wa s t he judicia ry
of fic er for th e 6th Flee t , tha t his princip al post wa s
the j udici ary offic er for the 4th Fl eet and tha t he
held c oncurrently the post of judiciary offic er of the
6th Fleet. Would he , in the norma l cour se· of busine ss,
and did he submit to you a t a ny time any rep orts of
ma t ter s ar is i ng i n t he 4th Fl ee t?
PROSECUTION: Obj ection. The ma tt er ha s b een covered.
Ther e is a littl e misstat ement i n th e que stion a s to the f a cts
a s to ~ha t t he witne ss t e stifi ed to , but I am not going i nto
t ha t. I am saying the ma tt er ha s b een cover ed ; we have rec e ived
t he answer ; ther e is no need t o go into it aga in.
DEFENSE : I submit if ther e is a misstat ement it is the
duty of couns el to c all att ention to it r a ther than mer ely
sta t e th er e is such a mistake. It s eems to me it is a duty
to the Court.
P:ROSECUTIO N: I point out that the ma tt er ha s been
an swer ed . If I am overrul ed I will sta t e it.
LAVJ ~.PEI!ffiE R: During the pros ecution's ca se, ther e were
many instanc e s of re petitious ma tter •:vhich wer e brought before
t hi s Tr i buna l. At the risk of a few r epe titious ma tt ers be ing
b rought in dur i ng the d ef ens e 's ca se , the obj ec tion is overrul ed.
PRO SECUTION: Sir, the re petitious ma tter tha t wa s brought
-391)-
~ y ll ~ 1949
'j_vy·0 DA -·Y
up during the prosecution's case wa s from differ ent witne sse s
1.'rho sustc:tined the ma tt er brought out by other witnesse s. The
repetitious ma tt er in this insta nce is from the ~ itness himself.
That is why I am obj ecting .
LA\.7 NE11TBER: I refer the pl'osecu tion to sever al of the
exhibits whi ch consisted of, a s I r emsmber on one occasion,
thr ee affid avits from the same witness.
PROSECUTION: Sir, each one of thos e affidavits contained
new rna tter and they v1ere r ead into the r ecord and took maybe a
he lf an hour to r ea l all thre e affidavits. The point I am arguing
is , t his very same witness ha s given the v ery same t e stimony l a st
Frid ay. There is no need to hear it t wic e .
DEFENSE: I don't think he ha s, sir.
I think the ruling so far is that you are overruled. Do
you uant to point out the misstatement?
PiiOSECUTION: ~1ay I have the qu e stion r ea d back?
(The l a st question was r ead by the repor t er.)
PROSECUTION: I submit that ha s been ansvrered.
DEFENSE: Yvhat is the misstatement?
PROSECUTION : I haven't be en overrul ed .
LAW PEMBER: You 1:vere ov e r.t-~ed on the other objection.
PROSECUT ION: Wel l, Mr. Furness stat ed tha t the ~ itn e ss
sta t ed that the principa l post wa s th e 4th Fl eet. The wi tne ss
t es tifi ed tha t the l egal officer was as signed to th e 4th Fl ee t
but he held concurrently the positions of l ega l offic er to
both the 4th and 5th Fl eets. - He did not t e stify that it wa s
the pr inci pal post. He t e stified that he wa s ass igned to the
4th Fle et.
DEFENSE: I think I can find the stat ement. Page 3874:
11 Q Now , I und er st and, further, that the lieut enant who nas
on duty a s j udicia ry offic er of the c ourt-martial of the Sixth
Fl ee t a lso serv ed concurrently a s judiciary officer of the court-ma
rtial of the Fourth Fl eet since this fl ee t was at anchor a t
Truk ther e f or a considerable period of time? A. The judiciary
offic er of the court-ma rtial of the Fourth Fleet held the con-current
post of the judiciary offic er for the Sixth Fleet. It
is the other rray around."
rfuy th e witness answer?
PROSZCUTIO N: It is just a s I have contended.
PRESIDENT: All right, the Tribunal can consider 1;.rhich is
right aft er wards.
DEFENSE: I withdrav; tha t que stion and a sk t his question :
-3916-
:-:·_}_J 11~ 1 949
TOYODA-Y
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Wa s the pr incipa l post of the judiciary officer for the
6th Fl ee t judicia ry offic er for the 4th fl eet?
Ye s.
And would he and did he, in the normal course of business,
submit to you r eports on matt ers arising in the 4th Fl ee t?
I did not hold the concurrent post of the senior judiciary
off ic er f or t he courts-ma rti a l of the 4th Fl eet. Therefore
I had no r el a tionship or connection wha tso ever with the
4th Fl eet. Con sequ ently the judiciary officer of the 4th
Fl e et would not and did not make any r eports co nc er ning
matt er s within 4th Flee t to me .
You t es tified on dir ect examina tion, in answer to a le ad ing
ques tion fr om me a s I na s examining in tha t manner by r equ e st
of the pros ecution, tha t a temp orary court-martial was se t
up i n the 29th Special Na va l Base Forc e a t Halmahera, the
commanding off icer of tha t Specia l Ba se Forc e holding th e
rank of captaino Could you t e ll us wheth er or not tha t
t emp ora ry cour t-martia l wa s set up in a ba s e f orc e or in
a gua rd unit ?
PROSECU'riON~ I didn't even touch tha t--
PRESIDENT: The ma tter of saving time is not al l-paramount .
The pr incipal ma tt er is to cont inue this cas e so that j ustice
is served but that we have rea sonabl e expedition in doing so.
P ROSECUTION ~ Sir, the prosecution never touch ed this on
cro s s-exa mina tion. Ther e is no r ea son to bring it up on
red i r ect. Further more, th e t e stimony wa s tha t it wa s set up
a t t he 29 th Specia l Ba se Forc e on direct examina tion. If the
man now say s it was set up for o guard unit, th en Hr. Furne ss
is impeaching his own ~ itn es s. In any event, the pros ecution
cc:tnnot s e0 the re l evancy of the t es timony , of the mat eriality o
I would like to understa nd h o ~ the defens e int ends to tie this
wi t ness ' t e stimony in nith th e entire case.
DEFENSE: If the Court pl ea se , Mr. Deitch is quit e right
that he did not cross- examine on thiso However, on going over
my not e s I find tha t t he re is a misstatement on the part of th e
wi tne ss Y'hich I am. sure was inadvert ent and I think tha t I have
a r~ g ht to clear it up . There is t estimony r egarding a court-martia
l a t Ha l mahe ra ~ tha t t es timony b eing the testimony of the
witne s s named Koba yashi. Tha t is 1Nhy this is be ing brought out.
LAIAJ t:rEEBER: What i s th e materia lity ; wha t diff erence
d oe s it make?
DEFENSE: I think the witness Kobaya shi t e stified to the
setting up of a t emp orary court-martial in a guard unit and not
i n a ba se forc e . I want to cl ea r up the inconsistency.
PROSECUTION: Does Mr . Furne s s intend to show that
Kobaya shi made th e misst a t ement or t his witnes s made th e mis-s
t atement ? If t his ~ itn es s did not make the misstat ement we
a lr eady have it in evid enc e.
-3917-
DEFENSE: You won't find tha t out, Mr. Deitch, until
the witness has answer ed the question.
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
LAW MEI.11J3ER: The objection is overruled.
It was not the 29th Naval Special Base Force. It was the
29th Guard Unit. The tempor ary court-martial was establish·
in the 29th Guard Unit.
Do you know of any other such case?
No.
You testified regarding something which vm s called the
"code of the samurai." Do you know of any such thing
as a samurai code in the s ense of a code of laws, r egula-tions,
rules, and so forth, numbered 1, 2, 3, etc.?
Prior to the Meiji Era I have heard that various feudal
lords in their own domain had more or less stipulated
their own code s of samurai.
Is it a code of ethics or a way of life or a code of law?
I think it is ethics.
Could you tell us what it taught with regard to a
defea ted enemy who had fall en into the hands of a captor?
There is an old J apanese saying, which goes to the effect
tha t the hunter refrains from killing a bird which has
flown into his hand seeking refuge--that is, a bird which
out of desperation and helplessness ha s flown into his
hands. This saying signifies the code of samurai; that
is, the bird in this case is applicable to the enemy;
and when such bird has come into the hands of the hunter
he will not k ill such bird but will be kind and will
assist such bird. That is the code of the samurai in
so f ar a s a captured enemy is conc erned.
You testified as follows: "Q As a r esult of this code,"
that is, this so-called samurai code, "all prisoners of
wa r were looked down upon a s being of a lower type of
man than the ordinary soldier; is that correct?" You
ansvvered: "Yes , it is considered a disgrace." Pag e 3900,
if the Court please.
Did you, by that answer, mean to refer to Japanese who
had been taken prisoners of war or to all prisoners of
war including prisoners of war from Allied armies?
It goes ~ ithout saying that this refers only to the
Japane se personnel who have been captured and become
prisoners.
Do you know vvhether or not Allied soldiers and sailors
who were captured by the Japanese were considered disgraced?
Tha t is not so. The Allied prisoners were,as I just
illustrated by the old Japanese saying, considered as
the birds in that saying.
Did you ever hear of Admiral Toyoda 1 s advocating ~altreat­ment
or execution of prisoners of war or the annihilation
of crews of Allied ships which had been sunk or crews
which had been captured?
-3918-
'"' ,:_ j_y ll' 1949
TOYODA-Y
PT\OSECUTION: Objection. No matter what his ans rver is,
it is irrelevant and immaterial as to what he heard. This
does not arise out of the cross-examination in any event.
This matter should have been covered on the direct examination.
DEFENSE: If the Court please it arises definitely out
of the cross-examination. I objected to it on cross-examination
but was overruled. The effort was made to show that the
samurai code was to the effect that prisoners of war v1ere
disgraced, that it made no difference whether they lived or
YJer e executed, and then these trick questions: Was Admiral
Toyoda a samurai? and, In his application of the rules of
interna tional warfare would he follow the samurai code? I
submit that it arises directly out of that cross-examination.
PROSECUTION: The only thing I object to in Ur. Furness'
answer is calling my questions "trick questions."
DEFENSE: Strike that.
PROSECUTION: Every time I have asked a --
PRESIDENT: Strike the word "trick" and let us continue
with - the examinr1tion, Mr. Deitch.
LAW HE~IIBER: Objection overruled.
A No, none whatsoever.
Q Could you conceive of his advoc a ting such a policy?
PROSECUTION: Obj ection. It is immaterial; it is
irrelevant.
DEFENSE: I submit that it is relevant in view of the
cross-examination to which this witness was put. I will l ea ve
it to the Court's judgment.
PROSECUTION: I just ask the Court to consider carefully
the que stion put, before they rend er any judgment: "Could
you conceive of his advocating such a policy?" I ask the
Court to carefully consider that question before allowing it.
DEFENSE: I know the Court will carefully consider every
que stion.
LAiN MEMBER: Objection sustained as to the form of the
que stion.
Q You ·were asked certain questions regarding something
that was called the Geneva Convention rules nith regard
to international warfare. Do you know whether or not
Ja pan ever ratified the Geneva Convention of 1927
providing for the tr eatment of prisoners of war?
A Japan has not r a tified that convention.
Q You testified that the draft which wa s sent out issued
by the Navy Hinistry in regard to the punishmcmt of Allied
fli er s wa s not an order; it was merely a draft submitted
to the fl ee ts a s r ef erence. Then you testified as follows:
-3919-
J~lw 11, 1949
TOYODA-Y
"Q. Does that mean that the fleets could act as they
pleased with regard to captured enemy fliers? A. Yes."
If the Court please, my reference is to page 3903 of the
record.
Could you tell us whether or not the various fleets
could authorize executions without trial for an offense
not considered a major wartime crime?
PROSECUTION: Objection. The answer is suggested in
the question. All the witness has to do is say yes or no.
I would like the witness to testify as to what he meant and
not have I'!Ir. Furness testifying as to what the witness meant.
All the witness has to do is agree.
LAW l!Ern:BER: Objection sustained as to the form of the
question.
Q Could you tell us what you meant by that answer then?
A It is because no punishment can be meted out without
following the regulation or rules.
DEFENSE: I ask that the record show the witness did not
seem to have understood my question.
Q Could you tell us whether or not at any tj_me executions
of captured enemy aircraft crews were authorized by the
Navy or by anyone else without trial and without convic-tion
for an offense considered a major wartime crime?
PROSECUTION: Objection. It still is the same type of
que stion. In effect Mr. Furness will be doing the testifying;
the witness will just answer, most likely, no or yes, but it
is still Mr. Furness' testimony.
DEFENSE: I submit that in this case, Your Honor, it is
definitely not. I am not confining myself to any regulation
or draft plan or anything. I am not asking, Does this mean
such and such, or does it not? I am asking him a very general
question. I submit I have the right to do it that way.
PROSECUTION: The question, sir, calls for a yes or no
answer. It is a long-winded question and the witness can
answer it with a yes or no answer. I would like to hear the
witness' testimony rather than the defense lawyer's.
PRESIDENT: The Law Hember will rule.
LAW HE:MBER: Objection overruled.
A No such authorization was ever given.
Q Now I show you defense Exhibit CP.
Let the record show that Mr. Deitch is now examining
the English translation.
I show you defense Exhibit CP and call your particular
attention to Annex 2, paragraphs A and B, and ask you whether
-3920-
JL;ly ll, 1949
TOYODA-Y
or not the content of the regulations which you testified
you saw after you went on duty with the Judicial
Bureau of the Navy Ministry was the same or different
from this, and if different, how it differed?
PROSECUTION: Sir, while the witness is examining that
I would like to make an objection. If it differs, Hr. Furness
is impeaching his own testimony; if it is the same, it is a
waste of time.
DEFENSE: I thought that if I didn't say it that way
the question would be definitely leading and Mr. Deitch would
have a right to object to it.
PROSECUTION: I would just like to point out, if it
differs he is impeaching his own testimony and if it is the
same it is a waste of time.
LAW MENBER: Where is he impeaching?
PROSECUTION: Sir, if it differs--this is a defense
exhibit ; they have offered it, defense Exhibit CP.
DEFENSE: I submit it doesn't impe